Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

YTS

Mr. Michie: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the relationship of Her Majesty's Inspectorate to the YTS Inspectorate being established within the Manpower Services Commission.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): The two organisations will be entirely separate. Contacts between them will develop as the pattern of work of the training standards advisory service becomes established. I am confident that the present constructive relationship between Her Majesty's Inspectorate and the Manpower Services Commission will continue.

Mr. Michie: Is the Minister aware that there is growing concern in education and training circles that a separate and distinctive inspectorate is likely to encourage further division between the two rather than what we all wish, which is much more co-operation. It also compounds suspicion that there is likely to be a difference in standards between education and the YTS.

Mr. Patten: Those suspicions are not well founded. Obviously there is some overlap between the functions of the two bodies, and there is a considerable need for liaison. I do not think it should be impossible to achieve that greater liaison.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister, in one of his illustrious speeches, called for education and training to be part of the same thing—learning. Why, then, are the Government to set up a new kind of inspectorate that is different and does not talk on an intimate basis to the other and is not part of the same body? Why can we not have one inspectorate for all kinds of educational training?

Mr. Patten: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman reads my speeches. I do not think that it should be impossible to secure greater liaison. I think that there is a slight difference between on-the-job and off-the-job training. It is appropriate that there should be different bodies.

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received on the educational content of YTS.

Mr. Chris Patten: My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations on this aspect of YTS.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister not realise that there is only 20 weeks off-the-job training on a two-year YTS course, as against the 26 weeks recommended by educationists and, indeed, the MSC model schemes? Does he agree that the lack of educational content makes a nonsense of the so-called quality training that he is seeking to achieve? It would be impossible to achieve.

Mr. Patten: No. The figure of 20 weeks off-the-job education and training agreed by the MSC for the two-year YTS is a minimum requirement. Longer periods will be encouraged when these are suggested by the trainee's needs when a vocational course is pursued.

Mr. Lawler: Unlike my hon. Friend, I do not have a brief to read from. Will he say whether the certificate of pre-vocational education will be widely available to YTS trainees during their two-year scheme?

Mr. Patten: We hope to develop CPVE in that way. I think I am right in saying that so far about 15,000 students in about 1,000 institutions are on the CPVE course. That is a good start and I hope to see better achievements next year.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister's answer was rather complacent. Is it not a fact that the model scheme which the MSC pioneered had a 26–week off-the-job educational content? That was an important part. Is it not worrying that we read in the papers this morning that the only young member of the Youth Training Board is considering resigning because he is worried about the whole provision and the quality of YTS, and about whether there will be a guarantee that what a YTS trainee is promised is delivered by the employer?

Mr. Patten: I do not acccept what the hon. Gentleman has said. The intention of the two-year YTS is to enable young people to get the chance to work for a qualification, and I hope that we shall be able to achieve that.

National Union of Students

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation making membership of the National Union of Students optional for students.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): The Government have not closed their mind to the possibility of legislating on this and other student union matters, but have no present plans for doing so.

Mr. Bruinvels: Will my hon. Friend accept that many students, including those belonging to Leicester university Conservatives, deeply regret being forced to become automatic members of the NUS? Will he reconsider his answer, so that students can be given the opportunity to opt into the NUS rather than being forced to become members of a union which is devoid of the political views that they espouse?

Mr. Walden: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's frustration, but I understand that it is open to individual student unions to decide, on a democratic basis, whether to disaffiliate from the NUS.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that he has a little local difficulty with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), but that Labour Members agree that it sounds a sensible idea? If it goes ahead, will the Minister consider the possibility of a ballot, because the Government are always rabbiting on about ballots? The Government thought that it would be a good idea to have political fund ballots for all the trade unions. The result has been to leave the Government with egg all over their face, because some unions pay money to the Labour party now when they did not do so before.

Mr. Walden: I am slightly confused by this train of thought. The Government are not against ballots in any circumstances, but I repeat that we sympathise with the view of those who question automatic membership of the student union.

Mr. Stokes: Why is it necessary to have a National Union of Students at all? Why could it not be abolished? Does my hon. Friend recollect that many of us who were at university before the war got on very well without a union at all?

Mr. Walden: I suppose that theoretically the NUS could vote itself out of existence as well.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister appreciate that while the NUS and, I am sure, all of us here deplore a violent response to expressions of view, however much we may despise them, it would be better for the Government to spend time discussing with the NUS the cuts that they are making in the standard of life for students, or they will disappear along with the union?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That supplementary was a little wide of the question.

Mr. Walden: The House has made known its views on the linkage of that supplementary question.

Physics and Chemistry Teachers

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the numbers of physics and chemistry teachers entering secondary education.

Mr. Chris Patten: No. The Government are particularly concerned by the sharp reduction in recruitment to physics training courses in 1985, and the potential impact on the numbers entering teaching next autumn. The more modest decline in interest in chemistry teaching could also be of concern if the trend continues.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least one major British pharmaceutical company has told me that it would be prepared to release members of its scientific staff to teach in local schools if that would assist in the shortage? Does he welcome that initiative, and, as this is Industry Year, will he give some encouragement to it?

Mr. Patten: I give great encouragement to such initiative. Now that the dispute is, we hope, behind us, we

should be able to get on with talking to education authorities, industry and others about how we can crack this long-standing problem.

Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the reports by the Institute of Physics and Sir Alec Merrison, well might the Government be concerned. What is the figure for physics students going into teacher training? Is it in single figures for the whole of Britain, as has been rumoured? What action will the Government take to put this deplorable and dangerous situation right?

Mr. Patten: I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the number is not in single figures, but in three figures. For those taking PGCE in 1985, the figure was 255—

Mr. Dalyell: For next year?

Mr. Patten: For 1985. That figure is still a great deal too low. The figure is not in single figures for next year either. I do not have the figure, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman have it. I am aware that the problem is extremely serious, and it is one which we must tackle by radical and imaginative gestures. I hope that it will be easier to do that now that the dispute is behind us.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am pleased that my hon. Friend is aware of the seriousness of the problem, but does he agree that the shortage of physics teachers is leading to a serious imbalance in higher education and that many universities, including the University of East Anglia in Norwich, are reporting a surplus of highly qualified applicants in subjects like accountancy, while there is a shortage in vital subjects such a physics?

Mr. Patten: I am aware of that. The education service consumes its own smoke, and that produces precisely the kinds of problems to which my hon. Friend referred. We must look imaginatively at in-service training and retraining of people with other qualifications.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that one of the reasons why people are not entering schools to teach these subjects is that the pay is not good enough? These people recognise that they can earn more in industry. What will the Minister do about that?

Mr. Patten: We want to see a better paid and better motivated teaching profession. I hope that serious negotiations will now start to create a career structure for teachers which better rewards teachers with responsibilities and with skills that are in short supply.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend rightly expressed the Government's concern over the shortage of physics and chemistry teachers, but does he share my misgivings that there is not, according to information from his Department, one teacher in the public sector teaching Japanese in what is Industry Year? What does my hon. Friend's Department intend to do about that?

Mr. Patten: Since my hon. Friend last raised that point with me, I have looked into the matter with great concern. However, I have not yet produced the teachers that he would like to see, but I shall report back to my hon. Friend on this matter.

Student Grants

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the National Union of Students to discuss the level of student grants.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the National Union of Students to discuss the level of student support.

Mr. Walden: My right hon. Friend has received some 940 letters about the level of student grants for 1986–87 and last met NUS representatives to discuss student financial support on 3 December 1984. I last met NUS representatives on 12 February 1986.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister confirm that student grants are now 14 per cent. below the level in 1979 and that that represents a significant drop in the living standards of students? Is that not damaging for the future of university education?

Mr. Walden: I would go further and confirm that student grants have been dropping on and off ever since 1962, under both Conservative and Labour Governments. The fact that the number of students is rising to unprecedented heights under this Government hardly suggests that the level of grant is a major disincentive to higher education.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are hon. Members who believe that the shortfall in grants could be made up by loans? We could adopt a system that is in existence in western Europe and the United States.

Mr. Walden: I note my hon. Friend's views on that matter, and I have made the Government's views clear on numerous occasions recently.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the Government's policy appears to be that students will be able to attend universities only if they have rich fathers or if they have made sufficient earnings in the vacation? Is he aware that very few students have these options available?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] I am stating the facts. Will the country reach the position where we have to reduce the level of university education and so become a barbarian dung-heap?

Mr. Walden: That is neither the Government's policy nor the effect of their policies.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the levels of parental contribution were altered just over a year ago there was a great outcry against them? At that time many parents felt that they would face great cash-flow problems arising from the proposed changes, but that a system of student loans would have gone a long way towards reducing the genuine hardship which many students now face because their parents will not top up their grant to the level that the Government think is appropriate.

Mr. Walden: I note my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: What proportion of the correspondence that the Minister has had on the matter supports the Government's view on student grants? Is he aware that only yesterday I received a letter from a student in Fife who says that he must give up the last year of his course if the 2 per cent. rise is imposed? Does the Minister agree that that is a disaster and speaks volumes about the Government's priorities?

Mr. Walden: I imagine that under this Government, as under previous Governments, few students will have written to welcome a cut in grant. I would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would send me the details of the case to which he referred.

Mr. Forman: Is it not the case that it is not merely the level of student grants which has caused anxiety, but the overall problem of student finance, which comes from a variety of departments and quarters? Will my hon. Friend explain why the review of student finance which at one time was anticipated was abandoned?

Mr. Walden: I am sure that my hon. Friend recalls our position, which is that once the Government decided against the student loans proposal, it was decided that there was insufficient material for the review.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister not believe that at present some students are suffering acute hardship because of the level of student grants? Does he believe that student grants can fall any further than their present level? Why cannot we have the public inquiry into student grants which was promised last year? It now appears that even some alliance Members are in favour of loans. Would it not be useful to have that inquiry to establish that loans are impractical and determine the genuine difficulty facing students today?

Mr. Walden: We are constantly alert for evidence of genuine difficulty of the type that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Again, I extend an invitation to him to send me details. On the question of a review, I have nothing to add to what I said a moment ago.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Why do the Government assume that students can survive on up to 30 per cent. less grant than members of the Government had when they were at university? I am thinking, for example, of the Secretary of State for Social Services. Surely there should he parity between what members of the Government received and what students today receive?

Mr. Walden: We must take a broad view of these matters and look at the expansion, which, I insist, continues to take place and which is welcome. We must look at the burden of expansion which is placed on people with lower incomes than the majority of students will ever have, and think of a partnership beween students, their parents and taxpayers when financing that welcome expansion.

Politically Controversial Issues

Mr. Robert Banks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has received to his draft circular on the treatment of politically controversial issues in schools and colleges; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: The drafts were issued on 4 February, and it is too early for there to have been any significant reponse.

Mr. Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend on this initiative. Does he agree that it is a cardinal principle in the teaching profession to maintain impartiality in teaching political matters, and that heads and teachers who express a strong political allegiance drive a wedge between the vital relationships of teacher and pupil, and teacher and parent?

Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure the House will accept that brainwashing in the classroom can have no place in a free society.

Mr. Maclennan: What steps is the Minister taking to assist the police to do their proper job of giving advice about crime prevention in schools, which is being stopped in some Left-wing-controlled, Labour-dominated boroughs in London?

Mr. Patten: A very useful document is being produced by the Society of Education Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers. That will be endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself. It is an admirable document and I hope that it will receive wide circulation.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my professional career I had a colleague who insisted on plastering his walls with posters of Chairman Mao, the hammer and sickle and all sorts of exhibitions of his love of Communism, and his teaching certainly had to be watched? However, he was the exception rather than the rule. The teaching profession, on the whole, contains its own integrity and most people are not given to political bias in the classroom.

Mr. Patten: I completely accept my hon. Friend's view. I think that the antics of a few discredit the hard work and conscientiousness of the overwhelming majority of teachers. I should confess to my hon. Friend that my moral tutor at Oxford was a former member of the Communist party.

General Certificate of Secondary Education

Mr. Gregory: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether all schools will be in a position to commence courses for the general certificate of secondary education in September, as originally planned.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the present position in regard to the state of preparation of the proposed general certificate of secondary education examination; and if he is satisfied that this examination course will be prepared by September.

Mr. Chris Patten: Preparations for the GCSE, under the national training programme, are substantial and thorough. Centrally produced materials, including videos and teachers' guides, have been made available to teachers and supplemented in many cases by further materials produced by the examining groups and the local education authorities. The training seminars for subject representatives from each school are being mounted and approved syllabuses distributed to schools. The onus is now on teachers to play their part.

Mr. Gregory: I welcome the amount of preparation that my hon. Friend has put into the timetable for the GCSE. Will he join me in deploring the fact that the militants of the National Union of Teachers have tried to prevent the introduction of these courses from September? Are they not at poles with the rest of their educational colleagues?

Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. The NUT, along with other unions, pressed us to introduce this

examination. It represents a major and important reform. I am sure that it will not want to scupper it at the same time as it is picking up the money which has been negotiated under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

Mr. Hardy: Are not the Minister and his right hon. Friend flying in the face of reality and disregarding the assessments of those closest to the situation? Is it not now clear that no valid new examination system will be ready by September this year?

Mr. Patten: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view. I know that he has a considerable concern in this matter, not least because I think that he has a child, as I have, who will be affected by it. We have made it clear that we are prepared to consider sympathetically any realistic proposals for adding to the literally unprecedented preparations which have been made for this examination. That remains the position, and we shall consider further any realistic proposals.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that in Kent we are grappling nobly with school rolls falling by some 30,000 places? The GCSE may benefit from teachers' training courses, but it also requires a range of new books and other equipment. Will the Minister give some assurance that the education authorities will be helped in their provision of those things?

Mr. Patten: We are considering the matter of resources. It is a matter which has been raised with us by many people.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the Minister aware of the extreme concern expressed by the Secondary Heads Association in the north of England, area 17, in a letter that it has sent to me expressing concern about the introduction of the GCSE? It supports the examination itself, but is concerned about the introduction in September and thinks that it is wholly unrealistic. The association has suggested that instead of schools starting the summer holidays in July, they should start a week earlier to allow teachers to have an in-service course.

Mr. Patten: I am hoping to meet representatives of the Secondary Heads Association shortly to talk about allowing training days at the end of the summer term. That is one of the suggestions that we are considering sympathetically.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend aware that as recently as 25 September, as far as heads in Devon were aware only the history syllabus had been authorised by his Department? None of the other syllabuses had been authorised. Unless syllabuses are known, teacher training courses cannot be planned and children cannot be advised on the courses they should take. That is why it is impossible for this examination to go ahead in two years' time without sacrificing one year's input of school children.

Mr. Patten: On a point of detail, it is the Secondary Examinations Council rather than my Department which approves syllabuses, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows. At the latest count, the SEC had approved 100 syllabuses. It is still on course to approve all the syllabuses by the end of April, so that they can be in schools by May.
Teachers already have available to them both the national criteria and the draft syllabuses. It is possible to


talk to parents or children about options on the basis of those draft syllabuses and the national criteria. I do not think that that point has been disputed by those to whom I have put it.

Mr. Freud: In view of the enormous logistical difficulties, quite apart from the dispute, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would not be seen as a sign of weakness to postpone the examination for a year? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he does not want to do that it would make sense to close secondary schools for two days in the very near future, to give teachers a chance to catch up a bit?

Mr. Patten: The point about training days refers to phase 3 of the training, which is next summer rather than this term. We have looked at the position carefully, but I do not think that there is any option other than pressing ahead to make a success of this examination. Running O-levels and the CSE at the same time as we were trying to introduce the examination would not be possible.

Mr. Watson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that hardly any of the examination boards in England and Wales are in favour of any postponement of this examination? Will he confirm that work on preparing the syllabuses is virtually complete and that in most examination boards the training is well under way?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right on all those points, but I still concede that the timetable is tight and that the job of introducing the new examination is tough. However, I think that it is perfectly within our resources to manage that job.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there are four basic criteria by which the new examination has to be measured? It must be workable for the teachers, credible to the parents, fair to the pupils and must win a high level of public acceptance from employers. At present, the Government are on course to fail all those tests. Is it not essential that the Government take urgent action to get a grip on this new examination and to turn it into a success rather than the failure it is turning out to be?

Mr. Patten: That is what we are intent on doing. I am not sure from the tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks that that is his objective.

Education Expenditure

Mr. Sean Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he makes of the level of public pressure for greater spending on education.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I have no doubt that there is considerable public pressure for higher standards in education, and for the best possible return on the resources invested in the education service. The Government will continue to work towards those aims.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the recent comment by the Minister of State that one of the reasons for lack of increased public expenditure on education is lack of public pressure, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us who is telling the truth? If the money has been available, why has the right hon. Gentleman spent the past 12 months telling us that there are insufficient funds to pay teachers

the extra money they want? If the funds have not been available, what is the point in the comments of the Minister of State?

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government take the view, which I think is shared by the majority of people, that teachers deserve more pay for effective teaching, but that teachers should also carry out the duties they have habitually carried out in the past, minus midday supervision, but plus appraisal. The Government are making substantial extra sums available over and above the annual pay awards to achieve that dual purpose. The money is still available to provide more pay for effective teaching, provided the teaching unions agree to duties being part of the contract.
Surely it is obvious to all hon. Members that there is public pressure for many aspects of public spending. There is immense pressure for many more services and it is the duty of the Government of the day to sort them out into some order of priority. The fact that the Government have found additional money for teachers' pay, subject to the conditions that I have already described, is a recognition of that duty.

Mr. Key: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his words are welcome, particularly to those who believe that more money should be made available for education? Will he also accept that higher priority should be given to education in the overall political arena and that the majority of teachers, as represented by their unions on the teachers' side of the panel, accept that more money means acceptance of conditions relating to assessment and so on? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the implications of the ACAS talks?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with all of my hon. Friend's comments. As for his question about ACAS, we must all hope that yesterday's agreement will lead to fruitful negotiations.

Mr. Flannery: When will the Secretary of State admit that school standards are now higher then they have ever been?—[Interruption.] It is typical that the voices raised against that reality are those of Conservative Members. When will the Secretary of State realise that he is not paying teachers what they are worth, that they recognise him as the real enemy and that they make that clear in all of their organisations? When will he also realise that teachers do a vast amount of work for which there is no overtime, that they are going back to work embittered and angry, and that it will all happen again within a very short period of time?

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have set aside substantially more money for the pay of effective teachers, on the conditions that I have described. That is the reality. No amount of vituperation from the hon. Gentleman will change it. As for school standards, there are many good schools, but there is surely, by common agreement, scope for improvement.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: As regards yesterday's settlement of the teacher's pay dispute, does my right hon. Friend agree that the leadership of the National Union of Teachers has shown yet again that it is prepared to do damage to children's education and harm to teachers as a body? Has not the time come to remind individual teachers who are


concerned about their individual professional standards and who are anxious to obtain higher salaries that they can join other unions instead?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the behaviour of the National Union of Teachers seems to be appalling. It is willing for its members to take the money that has been negotiated by the other unions and the employers, but to continue the disruption. It is urging its members to stand in the way of the reform talks that we so patently need. I regard the NUT's position as utterly indefensible.

Mr. Benn: Has the Secretary of State turned his mind to the fact that in Japan only 1 per cent. of the national income is spent on defence and that one of the reasons why Japanese research and development and the manufacture and sale of high technology are more successful than ours is that we spend 6 per cent. of our national income on defence and thus divert money away from many things, including proper investment in education?

Sir Keith Joseph: But does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Japanese Government and people do that only because they have accepted total protection from the United States? Would the right hon. Gentleman support a move by this country towards that kind of policy?

Mr. Latham: Regarding capital spending, which is very important to parents, would it not help my right hon. Friend to deal with this pressure if a rather higher proportion of capital receipts were made available to local education authorities to spend in their own areas?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, indeed, and if it were possible that would make the Government that little bit more popular. But the trouble is that when that policy was adopted two or three years ago the local education authorities together spent £1,000 million more than they had warned they would spend, which came near to wrecking the national economy.

Mr. Radice: Does the Secretary of State understand that parents are rightly asking for more books, more equipment and more effective teaching, so as to raise standards in schools? Why does the Prime Minisster seem concerned only with educational red herrings, such as vouchers and privatisation, which will do nothing to help the vast majority of pupils? When will the Government acknowledge that all our children should have the right to good quality education?

Sir Keith Joseph: The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman seems only to have read half of the annual report by HMI, which said that there was too little spending on books in many local education authorities, but went on to say that, with better management by many local authorities, money now wasted could be redeployed in favour of books, equipment and maintenance.

Inner Cities Education Project

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what sum from the inner cities programme will benefit inner cities education projects.

Mr. Chris Patten: The main focus of the new inner cities initiative is to be on improving employment opportunities, supporting local industry and improving the physical environment. However, the urban programme is

already supporting education expenditure of about £33 million in urban areas in 1985–86 and over £81 million of education expenditure, mostly in urban areas, is being supported by section 11 grants.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. In the light of the opinion poll released this week, commissioned by ILEA, which shows that more people—40 per cent.—think that the quality of state education in inner London is poor, very poor or terrible than think it is good, very good or excellent, will he direct the educational funds aimed at inner cities to dealing with the quality of education in inner London, which is at the core of the problem, rather than allowing it to be directed to peripheral activities, which will not give youngsters the employment opportunities at which the inner cities programme is aimed?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point about quality. If there was a direct relationship between quality and the amount of resources spent, standards in ILEA would be second to none, but, alas, that is not the case.

Mr. Spencer: When my hon. Friend visits Highfields in Leicester, following the initiative announced by his right hon. Friend, will he consider the need for single sex education and how that might be met?

Mr. Patten: Before I go to Highfields I shall, of course, talk to my hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that he will mark my card.

Mr. Freeson: The Minister must accept that the figures he has quoted are no more than a tiny fraction of the massive thousands of millions of pounds that are spent each year on education nationally. Does he agree that what is much more important, and is receiving little or no attention, is the shift of the main line budget for education into the inner city areas? Does he accept that there is a direct relationship between the amount of money available for refurbishing rundown buildings and the environment in which children have to grow up?

Mr. Patten: I have tried to deal with the question of the relationship between input and output in education. I did not mention all the funds that are going to the inner cities. I did not mention, for example, the money that is being paid under the education support grants. I do not think that the situation is as easy as the hon. Gentleman said. If it were just a question of resources equalling quality, we should not have to deal with some of the horrors that are on the scene.

Sixth Forms

Dr. Twinn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given to local education authorities over the relative merits of school sixth forms as opposed to other forms of post-16 provision.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): My right hon. Friend's advice is set out in circular 4/82. That circular made clear his belief that no single pattern of secondary organisation has overriding advantages of principle; it went on to urge local education authorities to choose the system most suited to local circumstances and preferences.

Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. If, as he says, there is no single pattern of secondary


organisation with an overriding advantage, does he agree that sixth forms of proven quality should be kept and that within any local authority area there should be a choice between staying on at school post-16 and going on to college?

Mr. Dunn: We are committed to retaining good sixth forms in schools of proven worth. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is yes.

Technical and Vocational Education Initiative

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the progress of the technical and vocational education initiative.

Mr. Chris Patten: Seventy-three education authorities throughout Great Britain are now involved in the TVEI. All authorities have been given the opportunity to take part in this important initiative; most are already running projects, and proposals from a further 25 which wish to join in the final phase starting this September are under consideration. The Government are encouraged by the enthusiasm and commitment that the TVEI has generated among those involved. The pilot projects, which are exploring how the education of 14 to 18–year-olds can be made more relevant to adult and working life, are already providing important lessons. We are considering how these should be applied more widely.

Mr. Madel: As the effectiveness and popularity of the TVEI increases among parents and children, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government remain committed to the necessary increase in funding for the TVEI to meet increased demand?

Mr. Patten: The Government are committed to considering how the lessons that have been learnt from this extremely successful initiative, in which we are investing about £250 million of the taxpayers' money, can be more widely applied. That will, of course, have some financial implications.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Flannery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a matter of the deepest public concern that many old people have died and are dying of hypothermia in this bitter cold winter? How could the Prime Minister and the Government stand idly by and watch these poor people in cold, unheated rooms waiting for approaching death? What will happen now? Will the rich and wealthy members of the Government blame everyone but themselves, when everyone knows exactly who is to blame for the deaths of many poor old people?

The Prime Minister: May I make three points in reply to the hon. Gentleman. First, spending on help with heating has increased dramatically from 1978 until now.
In 1978, £90 million was spent on providing help with heating, and we are now spending £400 million. There has been an increase in expenditure of £140 million in real terms. Secondly, the number of those eligible for heating additions has increased greatly. The House will be aware that 90 per cent. of supplementary pensioners are now receiving heating additions, compared with 70 per cent. in 1978–79. Thirdly, in addition to the £400 million that is already being spent, extra help in the form of severe weather payments is available in almost all of the 500 DHSS area officers throughout the country.

Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any member of the Civil Service who frustrates the efforts of the fraud squad to prevent the pilfering of public money by claimants is dismissed instantly?

The Prime Minister: I hope that no one will frustrate the efforts of the fraud squad, which is entirely independent. Its efforts must be allowed to bear fruit.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister join me and hon. Members on both sides of the House in applauding the initiative of Age Concern in providing 1,000 survival kits to old people, who it considers are most at risk from the cold weather? Does the right hon. Lady share Age Concern's view that, while it is doing what it can, the Government must act by issuing urgent heating allowances? Will she give the country an assurance that she will change the system of helping with heating costs so that we shall never again experience a winter in which poor people freeze to death for want of help with their heating bills?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman heard that help with heating bills has greatly exceeded anything that was made available in real terms during the lifetime of the previous Labour Government. He has heard also that of the 500 DHSS offices, almost all are making available the payment of extra severe weather payments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has arranged for massive advertising in the national press on the availability of extra help with fuel bills. This is being supplemented by considerable local effort.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree that the £140 million is somewhat misleading, in that it should be compared with the £1·5 billion which has been denied to old-age pensioners in Britain as a consequence of changing the formula for calculating old-age pensions? Does she further agree that pensioners and poor people are interested, not in swapping figures, but in how they pay their heating bills? May I ask her again whether, in view of the tragic experience of this year and last, she can assure us that she will change the system to provide a more generous, simpler and better advertised system of providing help with heating bills so that we never experience another winter of disconnection?

The Prime Minister: The amount available exceeds anything that was available before. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of that. I repeat that £400 million is available for help with heating. In addition, almost all of the 500 supplementary benefit offices are open for help with severe weather payments They are paid restrospectively, and there will be a massive advertising campaign to help with that. The right hon. Gentleman does not like the extent of the help that is available.

Mr. Kinnock: I acknowledge the extent. It is the effectiveness about which the right hon. Lady must answer. Why, if there is such help, has our death rate during the winter been three times that of the United States of America and four times that of Sweden? Will she now make changes that ensure that we stop the incidence of hypothermia? Will she recognise that the number of deaths last year was higher than the year before, and that the number of deaths this year will be higher again? Will she stop this awful mounting crisis by changing her policies?

The Prime Minister: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that £400 million is available now, as compared with £90 million during the winter of discontent, when not one Labour Member raised the matter in the House? Moreover, nearly 500 DHSS offices are open now for severe weather payments. What the right hon. Gentleman has been asking for is happening. He does not like the fact that it is being done.

Mrs. Currie: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Currie: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read Today and to reflect on the fact that modern technology also creates jobs? It does not just destroy them. Has she had time to reflect on the fact that none of that would have been possible without the Government's magnificent trade union legislation and their fostering of an atmosphere of free enterprise?

The Prime Minister: I agree that technology creates jobs. It enables industries to stay competitive. The record of our manufacturing and extractive industries in increasing productivity is excellent. All involved in them deserve congratulation.

Mr. Hume: Now that we are getting a substantial radioactive leak a week from Sellafield, does the Prime Minister agree that public concern has become public alarm and that there is no alternative to closing the plant down?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The nuclear power industry has the best safety record of any energy industry. It would be as well if that were fully recognised by some of those who criticise Sellafield. The Health and Safety Executive is carrying out an audit. I welcome the audit and believe that the facts should reassure people.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Forsyth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Central regional council, which last year gave £216,000 to the striking miners, is proposing school closures in rural areas this year to save less than £50,000? Will my right hon. Friend consider changing the system of funding education to reflect, per capita, the number of pupils attending schools, so that parental preference rather than political expediency rules the roost?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows from the Bill now before the House, the Government are concerned to get greater parental influence in the choice

of schools. All parents pay for education out of their pockets as taxpayers and ratepayers and are entitled to greater choice than they have, and all options are being considered.

Mr. Eastham: May I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that there is a mass lobby of engineers from British Leyland bitterly protesting against the possible sale of their industry to foreign interests? May I remind the Prime Minister that, when the sale of Westland Helicopters was going through, it was claimed by the Government that the work force had been consulted? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the work force of British Leyland will be consulted before there is a sale?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government were not interfering with financial help in a rescue package with Westland. That was the basis of the decision. He will also recall that there has been, and continues to be, enormous help given to British Leyland. He is well aware of what the position is at the moment. The intention to make bids, or the indication that bids are to be made, should be in today, and we are not in a position to make any statement until all those bids are in and have been considered.

Mr. Beith: What contribution towards reconciliation in the coal industry can be made by a colliery review procedure which the National Coal Board ignores whenever it finds against it? What is sacrosanct now?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the colliery review procedure is advisory and that the final word is in the hands of the National Coal Board. That was always so.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend concede that the last Labour Government did very little for old-age pensioners? Will she also concede that it was the Labour party which snatched away the Christmas bonus which the Tory party introduced? Will she also concede that it was Tories who reintroduced the Christmas bonus for pensioners? How does my right hon. Friend think that Members of the Labour party can accuse us, in the way they have done earlier today, when they have been such a disgrace in the past?

The Prime Minister: I could not improve on the excellent way in which my hon. Friend puts the case. I hope that hon. Members will also remember that only last year the Opposition were supporting a strike that was designed to rob pensioners of heating and light.

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Most people in need of extra heating have no real choice of the kind of dwelling they inhabit, and heating costs vary widely. Why do the Government base their heating costs on the individual, rather than on the cost of heating?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the rule has been changed since last year. Last year's rule was not found to be satisfactory and it is therefore now a matter of discretion, and that should enable us to give just the kind of latitude the hon. Gentleman wishes to have.

Sir Edward du Cann: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the figures for the appalling decline in Britain's


merchant fleet? Is she aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House are now desperately concerned about this matter and its implications, both for our defence policy and economically? We could not mount another Falklands operation if we wished, because we do not have the ships. More than 80 per cent. of British trade is now carried in ships with foreign flags. Is she aware that there are things that could be done to change the situation? Will she instruct her senior colleagues to see that they are done, and done without delay?

The Prime Minister: I know my right hon. Friend's interest in this subject, but I must disagree with him when he says that we could not mount another Falklands operation. We could. I would like to make that clear. The Government fully recognise the role that the merchant fleet plays in times of emergency and war, and the requirements are subject to continuous review. The merchant fleet remains capable of meeting all the needs of the armed

forces. We have long-standing NATO arrangements to pool Alliance merchant shipping should there be war. The important thing for the future of our merchant marine is to ensure that British shipping can compete with the fleets of other nations on costs. That is one of the problems.

Mr. Terry Davis: In view of the widespread impression that the Cabinet is biased in favour of a takeover of parts of the British motor industry by General Motors and the rumours that are now spreading in Birmingham, will the Prime Minister tell us whether any member of the Cabinet has a relative working for General Motors or one of its subsidiaries?

The Prime Minister: I resent the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question. He is aware that bids are in today and that they will be considered, and they will be considered with one thing in mind—what will give British industry the best chance of jobs.

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the events in Northern Ireland yesterday.
As the House will be aware, the leaders of the two main Unionist parties had called for a day of action and protest. They invited everybody to stay away from work and stated that it was to be a passive and voluntary demonstration and that there should be no road blocks or intimidation of those going to work.
In the event, there was widespread obstruction, intimidation and some violence during the day culminating in serious disorder in east and north Belfast last night. The first incidents occurred before midnight on Sunday and disturbances continued until the early hours of this morning.
In spite of these difficulties, a very considerable number of people succeeded in getting to work, particularly in the commercial offices and public services, but many factories were seriously affected.
I pay tribute to the determination of all those who refused to be intimidated and exercised their right to go to work. I also pay tribute to the men of the security forces and particularly the Royal Ulster Constabulary for all the work that they did to seek to keep roads open for people to be able to get to work. However, there have also been a number of complaints when it is alleged that the police did not take action when it was required. The Chief Constable is preparing a full report on all the policing aspects of the past 24 hours.
To give the House some indication of the scale of the workload that the RUC faced, on the latest information available to me there were some 655 road blocks in the Province during the period, of which 441 were cleared. There were in addition some 80 cavalcades and demonstrations, which caused considerable disruption in a number of towns mainly around midday and in the afternoon. There were 57 arrests and the names of 184 people noted to proceed by way of summons. Sixty-five plastic baton rounds were fired and 47 policemen were injured. Last night there were a number of petrol bombs thrown, and there were over 20 shots fired in three firearms attacks on the police during the disturbances in the Loyalist areas.
The figures listed above give the details of a tragic day for Northern Ireland. Many Members will have seen some of the disgraceful incidents on television last night. These pictures have been shown all over the world and will do great damage to the reputation of the Province. The House will also have seen elected Members of this House making common cause with people in paramilitary dress.
The Government are well aware of the strength of feeling among many Unionists about aspects of the Anglo-Irish agreement. The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) last Tuesday. During a long meeting, my right hon. Friend put forward a number of proposals to help meet their main concerns and agreed to consider positively their suggestions that the Government should call a round table conference to discuss devolution in Northern Ireland. It

was agreed that we would all reflect on the various suggestions that had been made and would meet again shortly. The prospects of constructive discussions instead of confrontation were greeted with widespread relief in the Province, only for that to be destroyed by their abrupt repudiation of this course following a meeting in Belfast late that night. They then decided to proceed with the day of protest.
The whole country can now see how tragic and totally counter-productive yesterday's action has been. It is now urgent that the Unionist leaders recognise again that the only way in which the concerns of those they seek to represent can be addressed is by constructive discussion and not by threats and violence. The degree of intimidation evident yesterday showed how little confidence many of the organisers had in being able peacefully to persuade their fellow citizens to join their day of protest. I make it quite clear that this Government, this Parliament, will not be intimidated either by the sort of violent actions that took place yesterday. I believe that an increasing number of Unionists, while disliking many aspects of the Anglo-Irish agreement, wish to look for a constructive way forward. The Government have made quite clear our willingness to sit down and discuss seriously the Unionists' concerns. In our parliamentary democracy, in this United Kingdom, that can be the only way.

Mr. Peter Archer: Does the Secretary of State accept that we on this side of the House share his abhorrence of the violence and intimidation which took place yesterday and which further alienated the sympathies of many people in Great Britain from the cause which it was apparently designed to promote?
Does the Secretary of State agree that if the protest was intended to demonstrate the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland against the Anglo-Irish agreement it failed as an indicator since we do not know how many people participated voluntarily and how many simply responded to intimidation? Bearing in mind the number of road blocks and the obvious evidence of preparations in advance, can the Secretary of State say whether investigations are taking place to ascertain whether the violence was planned and, if so, by whom? If it transpires that it was planned, will proceedings be initiated against those responsible?
While we join in the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to those police officers who strove hard, in difficult circumstances, to preserve order and to prevent intimidation, and while we offer our tribute to those who declined to be intimidated, he has referred to allegations of some incidents in which people were prevented from going about their business in the presence of police officers who failed to intervene. When the Chief Constable's report on these allegations is complete, will the Secretary of State report again to the House?
Will inquiries take place into reports that some off-duty members of the Ulster Defence Regiment were at the barricades? The Secretary of State has referred to suggestions from responsible leaders among all sections of opinion in Northern Ireland that they are prepared to meet those with whom they disagree to discuss how to make progress. Will he again invite them to meet together under his chairmanship and seek consensus, which will isolate the men of violence on both sides of the divide and offer a less dismaying future for the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for the way is which he has responded to the statement and to his right hon. and hon. Friends for their support in this matter. He may have seen in the comments of the Chief Constable before the strike the clearest signs that this was to be a peaceful, dignified and voluntary protest. It manifestly was not so—and that was made manifest in ways that showed considerable planning in advance. I know that the Chief Constable will want to investigate all the policing aspects of what occurred yesterday. He has already put on the record that any evidence of incidents of indifferent policing should be brought to his attention and will be investigated.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked specifically about an invitation to the parties in Northern Ireland to talk sensibly about these problems. I hope that we can get discussions going. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put some specific proposals to the leaders of the Unionist parties. This could have provided the way forward, but was repudiated, although in Northern Ireland only — we have not received any official communication to that effect. I shall do all that I can to seek ways in which discussions can start. That is the only way. Violence will not succeed, and will be only counter-productive.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not a tragic absurdity that, as a result of the Anglo-Irish agreement, a Unionist Government's only political friends in the Province should be Republicans? How do the Government propose to govern the Province—by force —or will they seek a constructive way out, and get in touch with the Taoiseach and adjust this damnable agreement?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows very well that what he said about the support for the agreement in the Province is not true, and that many people with no nationalist sympathies see benefits in this agreement and have supported it. Clearly the problem—and I hope that my hon. Friend will assist in this — is to get a true understanding of what the agreement is. The literature that was being passed out yesterday, in which the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) played his part, talking about the establishment of partial Dublin rule and allowing the agreement to bring about the all-Ireland that it seeks, makes one realise how great are the distortions still being perpetrated on the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we share his sentiments about yesterday's appalling events in the Province? We are reassured by the last paragraph of his statement. That is the right way to proceed and we support him all the way. We acknowledge the genuine feelings of Unionists who have suffered grievously at the hands of the IRA, the Provisional IRA and INLA, but is it not time that the Unionist leaders in the Province and Unionists themselves recognise that there is not an inexhaustable supply of finance from the rest of the United Kingdom, and that people from the rest of the United Kingdom also have the right to say "Enough is enough"? What about the workers at Harland and Wolff and Short Bros, which have been financed by large sums of money from here? Why did they stay away from work yesterday?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on behalf of his right hon. and hon. colleagues. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have made clear our strong hope and desire that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. Perhaps one of the most offensive things about some of the aspects of the protests is the implication that we are seeking to undermine the position of Northern Ireland. The purpose of the agreement is to reassure the Unionists about the validity of the position of the majority, and to get the agreement of the Republic confirmed in an international agreement to say that there can be no change in that majority position without the consent of the majority. The House will see that, even in the face of that, there are those who will refuse to accept it, no matter that it is article 1 of the agreement and should be a great reassurance to Unionists in Northern Ireland.

Sir Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the protest was not so much a demonstration but, in certain parts, a rebellion? Speaking from experience, I can say that nothing like that has happened before. Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the £2,000 million poured into the Province at least demands some responsibility from the other side?

Mr. King: It has always been accepted in the United Kingdom that the areas in greatest need receive a greater subvention than other areas. In that respect, Northern Ireland is no different from other parts of the country in relation to the assessment of need.
However, in response to the first point raised by my hon. Friend, may I say that it is particularly tragic that at a time of considerable terrorist activity such an additional strain should have been placed on the security forces as was placed on them yesterday. That involved a massive redeployment of the RUC to maintain law and order and the rights of the citizen against the so-called Loyalist mobs in certain areas. People were definitely put at risk from terrorist attack in other parts of the Province.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In view of the concluding words of the Secretary of State's statement, will the Government take steps to proceed towards giving all the people of Northern Ireland a full share in what the right hon. Gentleman calls this parliamentary democracy?

Mr. King: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's views on this matter. I am not sure that his views are shared by the right hon. Member for Strangford.
The Government are anxious to achieve a system for administration in Northern Ireland on a basis that is widely acceptable to both communities. We have made that aim absolutely clear and the agreement is designed to encourage that.

Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is wrong for him to come to the House and make splendid statements about not yielding to intimidation—which I agree with—when at the end of the day carrying out that policy depends on the courage and resolution of our security forces and, in particular, on the men and women of the RUC? Will he therefore show just a little more understanding of the human position of those police officers who are shot in the back by the violent minority and who now no longer have the consent of the majority and yet are gagged by their


chief constable and do not receive, from his office, the support to which they are entitled in the grave circumstances which our country now faces?

Mr. King: I deeply resent the last sentence of my hon. Friend's remarks. I have made it absolutely clear that the RUC is aware that it as my full commitment and support. I have the greatest admiration for the RUC as a professional police force. I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern about consultation and the rights of the Police Federation in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend knows that that is under discussion at present.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Secretary of State agree that yesterday's day of protest, which in some cases was near insurrection, and the plans projected for the weeks and months ahead to culminate in July can only seriously weaken the link between Northern Ireland and this country? In the light of that, it is no good the Government ignoring the situation. A number of us in the House faced such a situation in 1974. The situation exists today. The Government must talk with the Government in Dublin about what will happen if the link is stretched to breaking point.

Mr. King: It was precisely because of our recognition of the concern about the situation and about aspects of the Anglo-Irish agreement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met Unionist leaders last Tuesday. The Unionist leaders went to that meeting, as they said, expecting the door to be slammed in their faces. As the whole House will know, when they left the meeting they held a press conference and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said that the deadlock had been broken. It is clear that a door has been opened. The tragedy is that when they returned to Belfast somebody else decided to slam a door in their face. We thought that we had succeeded in opening the way to sensible discussions. The best way to proceed is for the Prime Minister to talk to the leaders of the Unionist parties, who proclaim their loyalty to the United Kingdom. That is how I would like to proceed. After the futile, destructive events of yesterday, I hope that wise counsels will prevail and that people will return to honour that agreement.

Mr. W. Benyon: Does my right hon. Friend recall the great tragedy which occurred when the Labour Government gave in to the Ulster workers' strike? Is it not now time for strong nerves? Does he accept that most Tory Members are right behind him in upholding the laws of the United Kingdom?

Mr. King: It is a time for strong nerves, but I hope also for wise counsels. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I hope that we can get the hon. Members involved to play their part in the House. Indeed, today one sees an increase in their attendance. I hope that we can debate these issues sensibly, and discuss the genuine anxieties of the people whom they seek to represent in this proper forum of the House of Commons.

Mr. John Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the Anglo-Irish agreement has now been in place since 15 November, more than three months ago, it has not done any harm to any citizen in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the only damage done has been self-inflicted, such as the serious damage to wide sections

of the community yesterday? Does he agree that the agreement is about recognising the validity of both traditions in Northern Ireland, and that Unionists cannot stomach equality of treatment for the people of Northern Ireland? Does he further agree that equality is the true basis of dialogue which is essential, if the community is to move forward? Will he name the date for the talks that he wishes to hold, and my party will attend?

Mr. King: On the question of damage or harm being suffered, there are already signs of the benefits that come from the agreement. Any intelligent Unionist must take comfort from the switch in votes from the party supporting violence to the hon. Gentleman's constitutional nationalist party which occurred in each of the by-elections in which there was a contest between those two parties. Any Unionist who is willing to look fairly at the agreement will begin to notice the encouraging signs of better cooperation on cross-border security. That is overwhelmingly to the benefit of every person in Northern Ireland. I hope that the people will see through the lies that they are being told, such as that this is joint authority and this is Dublin rule. Those slogans, on which the by-election campaigns were fought, are wholly untrue, and people will increasingly realise that. I hope that then we shall get men of good will, who do not act merely from bigotry and prejudice, but are prepared to look fairly at the position of the minority as well as the majority. Then we can start sensible discussions to the benefit of all concerned.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: If we go on like this, with the majority in Northern Ireland feeling threatened and some of them taking desperate measures, and with my right hon. Friend condemning them in the strongest terms, as he has today, will not even the minority feel threatened? Will not the position become far worse than it already is? Does that not point to the fact that the Anglo-Irish agreement was a blunder of the first magnitude?

Mr. King: In my statement I paid tribute to the number of people who, often at considerable inconvenience and with considerable courage, ensured that people were not intimidated yesterday. The vast majority of people in many areas got to work, despite all the difficulties. My hon. Friend also chooses to overlook the fact that only a week ago today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met the leaders of the two Unionist parties and achieved an outcome which could have led to sensible, constructive talks. That is the way we must go, and the sooner the better.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Has the Secretary of State read the report on the front page of The Irish Times today entitled "Bottles, bricks and bigotry in Portadown" by Willy Clingan, a Northern Irish Protestant? He said that he saw none of the acivity, on the part of either the RUC or the security forces, which the Secretary of State claimed. I dare say that that was just a black spot, although I would be surprised if it was the only one. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, should there be a recurrence of yesterday's events in Northern Ireland, there will not be a repetiton in Portadown, otherwise how will he and most hon. Members, who welcome the tone of the statement today, do their bit to help the RUC and the security forces to be accepted across the communities in the spirit of the agreement?

Mr. King: In the atmosphere of claim and counterclaim about what the RUC did and did not do yesterday, I thought that the most helpful thing for the House would be for me to give the best statistics available at this time. The House will realise from the figures I gave of the number of road blocks and the number which were removed that there were some gaps. I think that anybody would honestly say that it was quite a remarkable achevement to remove 441 road blocks over about 12 hours. I certainly am concerned, and I know that the Chief Constable is concerned, to learn any lessons that we can from the scale of the problems that were faced.
There is no doubt that the assertion, accepted in good faith and given by what the Chief Constable believed to be responsible leaders, about what was meant to be an orderly and dignified protest led, in some cases, to the police being too thinly spread in certain areas. That raised problems for them. I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we wish to learn every lesson that we can.

Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however deep and justified is the hostility of the people of Northern Ireland—the Unionist majority—to the Anglo-Irish agreement, the scenes of violence we saw yesterday are not only deeply repugnant to everybody on this side of the House but also injure the Unionist cause? If my right hon. Friend should receive a request from the Government of the Irish Republic that the intergovernmental conference should not meet for, say, three months, would he consider it carefully?

Mr. King: I listened this morning to the entirely constructive remarks that my hon. Friend made in his broadcast when I was in Stormont. I respect the view that he has taken about the lack of wisdom of yesterday's action. I think that they were wise words and I wish that they had been heeded by more unionists.
On my hon. Friend's request and our attitude to it, may I say that we have entered into an agreement in good faith which we believe will bring benefit to all the people of Northern Ireland. If he is saying, for example, that we should suspend the discussion on improving cross-border security and the many steps that are being taken to make a more effective counter attack against terrorism, I think that that is a difficult proposition to make, but I note his comments.

Mr. John David Taylor: Has the Secretary of State read the excellent analysis in The Irish Times today of the serious position developing in Northern Ireland by the former Cabinet colleague of the Taoiseach, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien? Does he agree with Dr. O'Brien's analysis that the Government rule in Northern Ireland without consent? Does he also agree that the Anglo-Irish agreement can be maintained only
by massive and sustained use of force"?
Since the Secretary of State has rightly said that the RUC was extended yesterday, and since it is improper to use 8,000 RUC men to impose the Anglo-Irish agreement on 1 million free citizens in Northern Ireland, what additional forces does the Secretary of State intend to use?

Mr. King: May I say before answering the right hon. Gentleman how pleased I am to see him here. I hope that he will persuade some of his colleagues that, rather than on the streets of Belfast and around barricades in the Province, the House of Commons is the right place to discuss these maters.
I failed fully to answer the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). I have not read The Irish Times today, but I shall look at it later. It sounds like a similar version of the malign scenario that I think Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien has painted for a considerable time about this matter. I do not accept that view. I believe that there is a more optimistic and hopeful approach to the affairs of Northern Ireland. I regard Dr. O'Brien's approach as the gospel of despair.
There will not be a strain on the RUC if responsible politicians tell the truth about the agreement and if they do not incite their supporters to acts of violence. Some hon. Members, not necessarily in the Official Unionist party but in other parties in Northern Ireland, have not been noticeable for their reticence recently. In that situation there will certainly be an extra strain on the police. I very much hope that we shall see people respect the rule of law and be prepared to talk sensibly about the right way forward.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospects for the Anglo-Irish agreement depend in part on the tenor of his responses to yesterday's events? However misguided, disruptive and violent the expressions of the people of Northern Ireland yesterday, the underlying implication was that those people wished to remain part of the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend recognise this sensitivity in statements? Does he agree that what is really needed is sensitive, quiet persistence in carrying through the agreement?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I have made clear again today, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear on a number of occasions, we understand the sensitivity of the Unionists about their position in the United Kingdom. We have sought to give not only the clearest assurances about it but our own personal commitment to it. We feel that that should be better recognised than perhaps it is by some.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not clear that what the Unionist leaders mean by democracy is having their own way—when they have a communalist vote which gives them the right to do as they please? Is there not another serious political lesson to be learnt? When the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) went to No. 10 Downing street, they were the nominal leaders of the Unionists but, by the time they returned to Northern Ireland, they found that they had been replaced and that other people, including the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), were the real leaders of the Unionist party. Is it not a fact that the speeches made in the past few years by the nominal leaders of the Unionist party have aroused something that was always latent and threatening? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was not a day of protest, as many have said, but, at the very least, a semi-revolt of the most serious proportions? It is no good us pretending that it was not something like that.

Mr. King: It is true that some of the activities of the leaders and other leading members of the parties in the months since the signing of the agreement have raised, quite unjustifiably, the antagonism of people towards the agreement and increased the expectation of what could be


achieved by their opposition. I think that some slightly wiser counsels have already broken through. People have recognised, as they have said, that it is not realistic to expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to agree to scrap the agreement. The agreement provides within its text for regular and frequent meetings—moreover, for meetings at the request of either party. The request for a suspension is therefore a breach of the agreement as well. Now people understand that the agreement is there. Sensible and constructive discussion must be the way forward.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognise the importance of this statement, but I must take into account also the other business before us today. I shall allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I spent all yesterday with true Loyalists in my constituency? Is he aware that, during that time, many of them expressed their profound dismay and disgust at the way in which other so-called Loyalists were behaving?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is undoubtedly true that those sorts of things do great damage to the reputation of Unionism. I am certainly most anxious to see the way forward by discussion and not by violence and intimidation, which will only damage the Loyalists' own cause.

Mr. Roy Mason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vast majority of hon. Members wish him and his ministerial colleagues to remain firm and resolute against the re-emergence of paramilitary Protestant terrorism which we witnessed yesterday afternoon? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, whether Members of Parliament are in favour of the accord or not, they would not wish him to be diverted from his course or to bow the knee to terrorism in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I very much appreciate those remarks, especially coming from the right hon. Gentleman. With his reputation in Northern Ireland for firmness of purpose in these respects, I think that they will be widely noted.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Unionist leaders would elicit far more sympathy from the rest of the United Kingdom if they participated more in aspects of the United Kingdom Parliament other than in just Northern Ireland affairs? What would happen if the Scots did this? We would feel isolated and different. I think that is why the Unionist leaders feel isolated and different.

Mr. King: This is one of the matters which we hoped we would be able to discuss and which we put forward in the proposals by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is true that one of the criticisms being made of the Unionists against the Government is that they are excluded from consultation and involvement in community affairs. The truth is that the Unionists are excluding themselves. They are absenting themselves from councils. They are not carrying out their proper duties in the Assembly of scrutinising the work of Northern Ireland departments.
They complain about being excluded and, to cap it all, they absent themselves from this sovereign House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Clive Soley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the British and Irish Governments, as the Governments of two sovereign states, have a joint interest in protecting the civil rights of the people of Northern Ireland and in enabling the two cultures to coexist in Northern Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if only for that reason, it is vital that no minority group exercises a veto over the democratically agreed policies of those two elected Governments?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman talks about joint interest. I should like to make it clear in case there is any misunderstanding that we have a clear responsibility, but we recognise the interest of the Irish Republic in matters affecting the nationalist community in the North. It must be clearly understood that there has never been in this agreement any question of joint authority. That is one of the lies told in some of the propaganda.

Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that all Unionists either should or do condemn the violence and intimidation yesterday? Was that violence and intimidation not entirely predictable and, indeed, predicted? Is that violence likely to recur when the marching season starts? Will my right hon. Friend state in clear terms the offer to the Unionist leaders in terms of talks? Are those talks to be open-ended, without strings and with no options closed? If not, my right hon. Friend is wasting his time.

Mr. King: On the first point, if my hon. Friend is right and such violence was predictable, a heavy responsibility rests on the shoulders of those who called the day of protest. On talks, it was made clear by the two Unionist leaders that, if they entered into any discussion, it would not imply in any way acceptance of or agreement with the Anglo-Irish agreement and that they would wish to conduct the talks outside the ambit of any Anglo-Irish agreement. We understood that position. We made it absolutely clear that the talks on the matters discussed or on any other matters that they wished to raise could go ahead.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Secretary of State still believe that the so-called Anglo-Irish agreement will help to bring about peace in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: Yes, I do.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend elucidate on his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter)? How are these talks to take place in the context in which there could be a constructive dialogue outside the Anglo-Irish agreement if that agreement is to stay in place?

Mr. King: I hope that my hon. Friend has seen a copy of the statement that was issued after the meeting that the Prime Minister and I had with the Unionist leaders. If he studies the statement he will see that various proposals were made. There is obviously a wide gulf and there is obviously total disagreement. Instead of harping continually on that, the intelligent way forward is to see whether there are areas upon which there can be agreement — not to concentrate upon the areas where there is disagreement.

Ms. Clare Short: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Unionists of Northern Ireland have always threatened violence in this way? That is how Ireland came to be partitioned. That is why there was such injustice and discrimination under Stormont. That is why Sunningdale failed. That is why Northern Ireland is the mess that it is. Always until now they have succeeded in that threat. Only if the British Government stand up to them and start to move forward can we begin to get peace in Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: One of the saddest aspects of yesterday is that many people will get the impression that the majority community in Northern Ireland are like that, when in fact the vast majority of Unionists are looking for a peaceful, prosperous and happy Province in which to live. They deserve a leadership that could look objectively at new proposals to see whether we can find a better way to go forward rather than the stalemate and the sadness of the last 12 or 14 years.

Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton): What kind of Loyalist puts on a hood and stands at a barricade? What are they loyal to? Is not the fact that they behave in that way doing tremendous harm to the instinctive support of the British people for the maintenance of the Union?

Mr. King: I find myself unable to answer my hon. Friend's question, because they were not even loyal to the protests in which they were supposed to be involved. As many hon. Members have said, nothing more destroyed the impact that that protest might have had than the visible intimidation, with the clear inference that if people were not going to work there were many other factors, except voluntary reasons, for not being there.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Were not yesterday's events, or something like them, foreseeable and foreseen with foreboding, and predictable and predicted by some of us who, with sorrow, went into the Lobby against the Anglo-Irish agreement? May I repeat the question that I put to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my own Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, in 1969? Charles I, Sir Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, Cromwell, Peel, Gladstone, Lloyd George and, in our own time, other well-meaning politicians from this side of the water—who of them have had any success in Ireland? Is not the real problem us?
I make no criticism of the men of the British Army, but if there is what is seen as an English Army in Ireland, what else can we expect? Without being frivolous about it, because it is a very unfrivolous subject, if they can get behind Barry McGuigan, and if they can get behind the Northern Ireland football team, by some alchemy, will not the residents of Ireland solve this problem? We ought to recognise that there is nothing we can do from this side of the water.

Mr. King: It would take more than a supplementary answer to respond to the hon. Member and to the many points that he has raised. I simply believe that the inferences behind his question are quite unacceptable.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle): Will my right hon. Friend agree that, much as the Parliament of the United Kingdom remains committed to the Union so long as the majority in Northern Ireland so wish, it has to be said that those who wrap themselves in

the flag of the Union to frustrate the Parliament of the Union and who destroy the consent upon which the Union is based put the Union at risk and no one else?

Mr. King: I have made absolutely clear, and I do so again, my belief in and my commitment to the Union of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. All. I would say is that some of the events of yesterday, and other events as well — as when other people try occasionally to hit me over the head with a Union Jack wrapped in an iron bar—put some strain on that loyalty.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Secretary of State has called attention to the fact that a number of hon. Members were making common cause yesterday with men at the barricades. If he is alleging that those hon. Members were in some way responsible directly for the violence in which they were participating, will he say who they were—because that role is not conformable with membership of this Hous — and ensure that they do not participate in the wider discussions that he must have with the Unionist community to ensure that their continuing anxieties are met?

Mr. King: The hon. Member may or may not have seen some of the television coverage of yesterday's events. He will have seen a number of people in paramilitary dress. I referred to the fact that Members of this House were making common cause. I noted the distinction that was made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) in his by-election when a group of people in paramilitary dress arrived. My understanding is that the right hon. Gentleman very properly said that he would have nothing to do with them and they were invited immediately to leave that by-election rally. I wish that I had seen some of that same approach yesterday.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Is it not most unfair to blame my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) for the current position in Ulster when in August of last year he warned that the denial of equal British rights to Ulster would seriously destabilise the Province, especially in the light of the comments yesterday of Mr. T. E. Utley in the Daily Telegraph, who described the Hillsborough agreement as not being about equality and said that
it is a frigid lie to pretend that it is."?

Mr. King: I totally reject the fact that any citizen of Northern Ireland does not have equal rights with others in the United Kingdom. One of the rights that people enjoy in the United Kingdom is representation in this House. I just happen to notice that that right is being denied to them at the present time by no will of the Government.

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough): Will the Secretary of State confirm that if there is such a phrase as "no surrender" it relates to the attitude of this House and that the Anglo-Irish agreement still stands and will be acted upon? If there is a phrase in common parlance—"not an inch"—it is a phrase to be adopted by this House: that the gains of the Anglo-Irish agreement both to the Unionist and to the nationalist community will not be surrendered, not by an inch and not by an iota. Will the Secretary of State confirm that last week's offer of round table talks is still on the table?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I confirm that intimidation or threats are no way to approach this House of Commons or this Government. That is a very


counter-productive approach. Nor would there be any case to use it if it were suggested that there is no other approach, because the offer of talks and the agreement that we should meet again to review the suggestions that we made stands. Even more after yesterday, I very much hope that people will realise that that is the sensible way to proceed. For elected Members in the United Kingdom, wherever they come from, faced with serious issues in their constituencies, to refuse to meet and talk with Ministers and with the Prime Minister and discuss these issues is a deplorable lack of responsibility at a very important time.

Later—

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in answer to a question which followed his statement, unwittingly misled the House. Can you give him an opportunity to correct the wrong impression which he gave? My right hon. Friend said that the rights of the Queen's subjects who live in Northern Ireland are the same as the rights of the Queen's subjects who live in Great Britain. My right hon. Friend will acknowledge that the passing of legislation for Northern Ireland is done by Order in Council, whereas for the rest of the kingdom it is done by ordinary Bills. Secondly, there is no—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That seems to be a continuation of the statement. I have already said that we have a very heavy day in front of us. We cannot continue the debate in that way.

Immigration Rules

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a point of order concerning the behaviour of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), of which I have given you notice. Indeed, I have given notice of it to the hon. Member.
I ask you whether it is in order for an hon. Member to write a letter on a matter relating to the immigration rules that libels another hon. Member. I refer to a letter which was sent in February by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden to a firm of solicitors, in which she enclosed a copy of a letter which the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) sent to me. In that letter she appears to say that new regulations are being prepared, of which the House has no knowledge, by the Minister of State, Home Office.
The hon. Lady said in her letter:
I wonder if you are aware that
the Minister of State
is working towards the introduction of new regulations which will prevent MPs such as
myself
exercising an open market in allowing people, such as
Mr. X
from coming into this country with illegal passports.
The hon. Lady claimed that
about 20 Labour MPs … operated a system over the Christmas holiday period of inviting people to come to them on the completely wrong information that their own Member of Parliament is not available.
The hon. Lady explained how she spent two days during the Christmas period not answering the phone—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is putting a point of order to me, he must not recite from letters.

Mr. Corbyn: I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that I explain why I am putting the point. I shall be brief.
The final point in the hon. Lady's letter is:
I am sure you will appreciate that this does not endear the system to people, like myself, who work exceedingly hard on behalf of genuine cases, many of whom are resident and very supportive of the Conservative Party.
First, Mr. Speaker, is it in order for an hon. Member to write libellous comments about another hon. Member and, indeed, about a group of hon. Members? Secondly, as the Member concerned is a Minister in the Government, she appears to have information, which is not available to the House, about the true purpose of the draft regulations which the Minister of State, Home Office has raised. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be in order for both the hon. Lady and the Minister of State to come to the House and make statements about the true nature of the regulations which the Home Office is trying to introduce.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot be asked to adjudicate on letters which pass between hon. Members and their constituents. This is a matter between the hon. Lady and her constituent. If the hon. Gentleman is alleging that it is a breach of privilege, that is a different matter and he should write to me about it.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend has given me a copy of the letter. It goes a good deal wider


than the hon. Lady's disgraceful personal allegations against my hon. Friend. There are two points. First, there are allegations against a group of hon. Members. The hon. Lady said in her letter:
It may well be that you"—
that is, her correspondent—
are not aware that there are about 20 Labour MPs who operated a system over the Christmas holiday period of inviting people to come to them on the completely wrong information that their own Member of Parliament is not available.
That is a serious allegation against a group of hon. Members.
Secondly, the hon. Lady is a member of the Government and she refers in the letter to what she calls the Minister of State
working towards the introduction of new regulations which will prevent MPs … allowing people … into this country with illegal passports.
The House knows of draft guidance, which the Government have communicated to a number of hon. Members, but the House knows nothing of new regulations. If the Government are contemplating new regulations — the hon. Lady is a member of the Government—it is essential that, apart from the hon. Lady coming and explaining herself to the House, the Minister of State or the Home Secretary comes here and says whether, behind the back of Parliament, they are working on new restrictive regulations.

Mr. Speaker: What the right hon. Member has said may be true, but it is not a matter of order. He must pursue it by other means. If he is alleging that contempt has taken place, he knows the action he should take. He should write to me about it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you should consider the matter, for the very good reason that several weeks ago, when it was first raised, the discussion was on whether the responsible Minister should at that time have made a personal statement about the attack on 23 Labour Members of Parliament. Because of his failure to do that, other Ministers are using those references in letters. The least that should take place now is that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) should come to the Dispatch Box and explain her conduct regarding not only the proposed new regulations but why the Government and their Ministers are carrying on the argument about those 20–odd Labour Members in the absence of an apology at the beginning from the responsible Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Again that may be so, but it is not a matter of order. There are many parliamentary ways in which the matter can be raised.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not having given you written notice of my intention to seek your leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, but the matter has arisen out of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. With your leave, beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of specific. urgent importance, namely,
the allegation made by hon. Members of the House, and inferentially supported by the Secretary of State, that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have failed in their duty to maintain the law as Parliament makes it and to maintain their oath of office to the Queen and to the House.
It is a specific matter because, if the allegation is correct, members of the RUC are guilty of the most serious crime. It is important because, if the police service cannot be relied upon to maintain the law of the land, no Government and no law are possible. It is urgent because we can see with our own eyes the chaos which is in prospect in Northern Ireland.
As one who supports the agreement and who supports the Secretary of State, I wish, by moving the Adjournment of the House, to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to take back the suggestion to which he lent his authority today, that the police service of Northern Ireland did less than its duty yesterday in the face of the rebellion against the law.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked leave to move the Adjournment—

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with a point of order in the middle of a Standing Order No. 10 application.
The hon. Gentleman has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
allegations made by hon. Members of the House, and supported by the Secretary of State, that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have failed to maintain the law and to follow their oath of allegiance.
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Mr. Tom King: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was aware that I could not interrupt my hon. Friend in his Standing Order No. 10 application. I very much regret that he chose to raise the matter in that way. In no sense did I inferentially imply a lack of confidence in the RUC. What I said clearly—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of order."]—is that there have been a number of complaints alleging that the police did not take action. It is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I fully understand the strong feeling of the Secretary of State on the matter, but I must apply the same rules to the Front Bench as I apply to the Back Benches.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Scotland

Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an elected Scottish Legislative Assembly for the purpose of improving, modernising and amending Scottish legislation and for the purpose of controlling and scrutinising the administration of Scottish affairs within the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
The people of Scotland voted almost exactly seven years ago, on 1 March 1979, by a majority of 77,435, which included, I believe, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to establish a Scottish Assembly. That decision has been treated with contempt by the Government. Instead of having an Assembly to deal with Scottish affairs within the United Kingdom, we have had the exact opposite. We have had a minority Government who have gone to great lengths to centralise more and more power in Whitehall.
The consequences of the refusal to carry out the wishes of the Scottish electorate have been serious. The machinery of government in Scotland is falling into disrepute. The catalogue of failure of the present administration in the Scottish Office is almost endless. The most recent and dramatic example yet of the incompetence of the Scottish Office is the betrayal of the work force at Gartcosh. We have also had the long-drawn-out tragedy of the teachers' dispute.
I am anxious to achieve the widest possible support for the principle of Scottish devolution. Accordingly, I have selected the wording of the long title extremely carefully. In fact, I did not choose the words. I borrowed them from an excellent speech which was delivered by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on 16 December 1976. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now, of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland. He said:
'Nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for devolution for Scotland, and this House must take account of it.
The House took account of that and the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to perform some amazing political acrobatics in the ensuing years. In column 1832 he said:
Scotland is the only territory on the face of the earth which has a legal system without a legislature to improve, modernise and amend it. This is a crazy anomaly.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was no Johnny-come-lately to the cause of a Scottish Assembly. He declared in column 1837 that he had
for 10 years argued the need for a directly elected Assembly".
What a splendid fellow. He conceded in column 1833 that there should be no substantial industrial or taxation powers devolved. However, he clearly did not rule out some devolved industrial and taxation powers. He summed up his position as follows:
There has been a qualitive change in the call for devolution. In the early twentieth century the demand for a separate Scottish Legislature was the result of national sentiment. That national sentiment still exists, but added to it is the need for good government, good administration and a better deal for the Scottish people within the United Kingdom.
Amen to that.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on the Scottish Office are especially relevant in view of his present position. In column 1833 he said:


Clearly I welcome the establishment of a directly-elected Assembly, and I welcome the fact that its functions are broadly those of the Scottish Office. The very fact that these functions are with the Scottish Office already is a recognition by previous Governments that distinctive Scottish treatment of these problems is necessary.
In column 1832 he said:
We have now a Secretary of State for Scotland who is for all practical purposes a Scottish Prime Minister. He covers a Department the equivalent of which in England and Wales is served by eight or nine Ministries. He has one Department, and Scottish Members are expected to scrutinise his actions. The Scottish Office has more civil servants than the European Commission.
If that was the position in 1976, it must surely be as strong now, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is Secretary of State for Scotland. I have drafted the long title in accordance with his clearly stated objectives and I repeat the invitation which I offered to him during Scottish Question Time last week. I ask him to sponsor my Bill in the interests of consistency if not in the interests of expediency.
In column 1836, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said of the concept of Scottish devolution:
It would not satisfy the extreme nationalists, nor would it meet the fears of the diehard Unionists, but those two do not represent more than a minority of the Scottish population."—[Official Report, 16 December 1976; Vol. 922, cc. 1831–37.]
Since then the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen fit to join that diehard unionist minority, a minority which consists now of only about 15 per cent. of the Scottish electorate according to recent polls. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the neck actively to support the repeal of the Scotland Act on 20 June 1979 on the ground that the clear referendum majority for devolution was not large enough, despite the fact that he had campaigned actively for a yes vote.
An absolute majority of those who voted in the referendum voted yes. Indeed, 32·9 per cent. of the electorate voted yes, which was a stronger mandate than the 30·83 per cent. of the British electorate who voted for a Tory Government in the 1983 general election. As for the Secretary of State himself, he had the support of only 20·61 per cent. of his constituency's electorate in the 1983 election. However, he seems still to think that he has a strong enough mandate to carry out the actions that he is now taking. We understand from recent local by-elections that the Scottish Tories are now running in fifth place in Scotland, behind the Labour party, the Nationalists, the Liberals and even the Communists.
I welcome this opportunity to draw attention to the ludicrous and spectacularly inconsistent position of the Secretary of State for Scotland on this crucial issue. After having taken the courageous decision to resign from his Opposition Front Bench position in 1976 so that he could fight for devolution, he has now become Scotland's answer to Jim Hacker. Yes, Secretary of State, seems to be the order of the day.
It is important to reassert the firm commitment of the Labour party and the majority of the people of Scotland to establish an elected Scottish Assembly to assume control of the powers which have been devolved to the Scottish Office over the years. Obviously that commitment is consistent entirely with our recognition of the position of our friends and neighbours in other parts of the United Kingdom, especially in the aftermath of the destruction of the democratic institutions of England's metropolitan areas. Scottish Labour Members can promise wholehearted support to our friends in the north of England in their

just demand for the decentralisation of power and the provision of an effective agency for economic development.
The overriding objective must be the defeat of this pernicious Tory Government. However, we should all recognise that the establishment of a better Britain and a better Scotland must be consolidated as soon as possible by constitutional reform, including, as an urgent priority, the establishment of an Assembly. It is in that spirit that I introduce my Bill.

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow): rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) seeking to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Dixon: It gives me no joy to speak against a ten-minute Bill that has been introduced by one of my horn. Friends. I feel rather like Daniel today. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has made my task far easier by explaining that the wording of the Bill is based on the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who is now the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I have a strong affinity with my friend the hon. Member for East Lothian. I have a holiday in Scotland every year with my family and I believe that the coastline on the west of Scotland is second only to the Northumberland and Durham coastline. The scenery in the west of Scotland is second only to that of Durham, Northumberland and Cumbria.
As one who represents a constituency in northern England with the highest unemployment in mainland Britain and with as many, if not more, social problems as are to be found in the part of the United Kingdom that is represented by my hon. Friend, I oppose the Bill for two reasons. We have already lost a tier of local government. The Tyne and Wear county council provided quite a strong agency for creating employment in the area I represent.
The motion does not ask that leave be given to introduce a Bill to establish an elected Assembly in Scotland in two years' time, or after we have a northern development agency or after a regional system of government which benefits the region has been established. It speaks of establishing an elected Assembly now.
My first reason for opposing the motion springs from naked envy. I envy my Scottish colleagues, who have a Secretary of State with Cabinet rank. I envy their being able to come here every month and ask questions of their Secretary of State. I am envious of their Select Committee. I am envious of their Grand Committee. I am envious of Scotland's development agency.
My second reason for opposing the motion involves a warning to a future Labour leadership. When we get a Labour Government in 12 months' or two years' time, we shall inherit an unemployment level of more than 4 million. We shall inherit a National Health Service which will be a shambles. We shall inherit a welfare state which the Government have disassembled. We shall inherit an industrial base which is in tatters. My warning as an individual Member of Parliament who will in all probability be re-elected at the next election is that I shall not spend time, as did the Labour Government between


1974 and 1979, dealing with constitutional issues in the House when there is so much in the country to be put right. That is why I oppose the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. George Foulkes, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. David Marshall and Mr. Bob McTaggart.

Mr. Home Robertson: And there is room for the Secretary of State for Scotland if he wants.

SCOTLAND

Mr. John Home Robertson accordingly presented a Bill to establish an elected Scottish Legislative Assembly for the purpose of improving, modernising and amending Scottish legislation and for the purpose of controlling and scrutinising the administration of Scottish affairs within the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 March and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

Orders of the Day — Housing (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 2

DUTY TO ENSURE AVAILABILITY OF SHELTERED HOUSING

It shall be the responsibility of each district council in Scotland to ensure that there is sheltered Housing available for 5% of its resident population over the age of 65 years."—[Mr. Maxton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Maxton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In the midst of the general housing crisis in Scotland, much of which the Government have caused, is a housing problem for the aged. An increasing proportion of the population are aged over 65, and an increasing proportion of them require housing that enables them to remain in society although they cannot entirely look after themselves.
In an excellent document, Age Concern recognises that the need is simply not being met. Very few local authorities in Scotland have anything like enough sheltered housing for people aged over 65. I represent an area in which 41 per cent. of the population live in council houses. Week in, week out, constituents come to my surgeries seeking special needs housing or sheltered housing supplied by the local authorities. Many of them are nearly housebound, or have partners who are nearly housebound. Many have to negotiate stairs, which makes mobility even more difficult. They require homes on the ground floor with some form of alarm system linked to a warden who can provide immediate help. Too many elderly people live without such support.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) wants to speak about this subject. Due to his past connections with Age Concern, he will no doubt be able to give more details.

Mr. George Foulkes: One is taken by surprise in this place from time to time and this afternoon has been no exception. It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of new clause 2.
Although I hope for a sympathetic response, I know that we shall get a response from a Minister who understands what I shall talk about, as the Minister and I have had some discussions on the matter before. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, I was involved with the needs of the elderly as a director of Age Concern Scotland. I shall quote from an excellent document which it produced and which, I believe, was sent to all Members of Parliament—it was certainly sent to the Minister—entitled "Housing Facts and Figures". The introduction says:
Age Concern Scotland believes that every pensioner has the right to a decent home. A decent home should be warm, adapted to the pensioner's real needs and at a price the pensioner can afford.


We have all been worried about warmth during the past few weeks. We know that old people often live in houses that are difficult to heat. Those who are lucky enough to live in sheltered housing are relatively well off. During the past few weeks, we have been worried about pensioners freezing to death in inadequate housing. Those of us who campaign for extreme weather payments should not sit back and think that we have achieved anything very substantial, because the payments are limited to relatively very few pensioners. Many others who need help will not benefit. If the Government have their way with the Social Security Bill, matters will deteriorate rather than improve.
One of the best ways in which to ensure that pensioners are kept relatively warm in winter is to ensure that they have a decent house which is well insulated and easy to heat rather than draughty, large and prone to substantial heat loss. During the past couple of decades, sheltered housing has therefore been advanced as one of the best means of housing old people.
It was my predecessor at Age Concern, which was then called the Scottish Old People's Welfare Council, the late Marjorie Salmon, who launched the idea of sheltered housing in Scotland at a conference in Aberdeen. The principle of sheltered housing was not then fully accepted, and people had not thought through the possibilities. A lot of tribute is due to those pioneers of some decades ago.
As to the need for sheltered housing for the elderly, the recommended rate — at least, it used to be the recommended rate—is 50 per 1,000 of the population, although I think that the Government are shying away from the fact that it is a recommended rate because increasingly they are unable to get anywhere near that rate, as I shall demonstrate.
The need for sheltered housing is increasing, not just because of the present severe winter but because the population is living to a greater age. Demographic changes are brought about by improvements in medical services so that people are living longer, for which one is thankful, and the percentage of old people in the community is increasing. It can be seen from the report to which I have referred that the figure is moving up to 17 per cent., and will be up to 20 per cent. by next century.
If one considers the type of housing in which old people live it is regrettably the case they are much more likely to lack a bath than is the case in the population generally. Old people are more likely to share a bathroom than the rest of the population, yet when one is old and retired, with the possibility of coping with incontinence and other difficulties, baths and facilities such as hot and cold running water are even more necessary than they are for the population generally.
Old people spend a much larger percentage of their income on the provision of housing. It is therefore very important that they get good value for the money they spend on housing. As I said in the debate that was truncated last Thursday, unfortunately public expenditure on housing has been halved in the lifetime of the present Government. The Minister tried all manner of twists and turns to deny this, but the facts speak for themselves. When the Government took office, over £1 billion a year was being spent on housing; the amount now is only £556 million, which, by anybody's arithmetic, is about half; and this at a time when needs are greater, the number of old people is increasing, and they are living in substandard accommodation. As a result, fewer new houses are being built.
Since 1979, 45,000 jobs in the Scottish construction industry have been lost. There is, on the one hand, this increasing number of old people in substandard accommodation desperately anxious to get into sheltered housing and on the other hand many construction workers who are unemployed. This is a ridiculous situation. It is time that the Government recognised the need and took the opportunity to put men—and, may I add, some women, as I note the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) — in the construction industry back to work.
If one examines the need, the recommended level of 50 per 1,000 of the retired population is not over-generous. There is a need for 36,000 sheltered housing units, identified in the Age Concern document, and confirmed by Government, yet fewer than 16,000 sheltered housing units currently exist. The shortfall is still well over 20,000 units. That is needed to provide the right facilities for old people.
Amenity housing, as the Minister knows, although one stage down in some ways, remains an important provision for old people. Again, on Government figures, the need is estimated to be over 72,000, yet in Scotland only about 4,500 amenity houses exist. The shortfall is over 67,000. One has to bear in mind the huge shortfall identified in the Age Concern document and the opportunities for unemployed workers to provide this housing.
I discussed this matter earlier today with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) and, although the need is as important as the quick revision of sheltered housing to meet that need, there are a couple of other things which ought to be borne in mind. I am sure that the Minister will agree, as my right hon. Friend reminded me, that when discussions are taking place between the local authority and the housing association which may be providing the accommodation for the local authority, careful consideration must be given to the appropriate location of sheltered housing units. It is important not to build units on outlying sites at a distance from the centre of the town. Housing for old people should be provided in the community so that they can participate in, and see what is happening in, the community, and be within easy reach of shops, post offices and other facilities. Full account should be also taken of the fact that old people can be annoyed by excessive interruptions from young people or by traffic.
There is a tendency, not too prevalent, for some authorities and organisations, in their enthusiasm to provide more sheltered housing units, to skimp on the provision, so that instead of providing two-apartment houses they provide studio apartments. That is not the sort of accommodation we should offer old people in retirement. It would be intolerable to see a return to the single-end type of accommodation which some elderly people had to live in at the start of their lives.
I have indicated the substantial need for sheltered housing that exists. We accept that the amendment is fairly rigid in its targets. The aim is to give the Government an opportunity to respond and to recognise how far short of what is required the present provision is.
The elderly feel under attack from the Government. Indeed, they have been concerned about the lack of provision for heating, given that pension increases recently announced amount to pennies instead of pounds—40p for a single pensioner which, as my hon. Friend the member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, is


enough to buy four eggs. The last Labour Government devised the formula that pensions should go up with increases in earnings or prices, whichever was the larger. If that formula were applied, a single pensioner would be better off by £4 a week and a married couple by £6·50. We know that in all those areas the pensioner is under attack.
I hope that we shall not see a negative attitude to this new clause from the Government. I hope that they will give some sign, even if the new clause is not acceptable, that pensioners have some hope of living in a decent house which is easy to keep warm and clean and in which they can continue to live during their retirement, in comfort and happiness. I hope that we shall get such a commitment from the Government but, if I am honest, having seen the Government's record, I have my doubts.

5 pm

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: In 1980, a report sponsored by the Scottish Home and Health Department and the Scottish Education Department, entitled "Changing Patterns of Care. Report on Services for the Elderly in Scotland", was published. It was the report of a programme planning group set up by the Advisory Council on Social Work and the Scottish Health Service Planning Council.
Chapter 4 of the report dealt fully with housing for the elderly and what was required to deal with probably the biggest housing challenge facing Scotland today, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, is the need to provide good, comfortable housing for a steadily increasing elderly population.
The report worked on the proposition that probably 50 sheltered housing places per thousand people over 65 would be about right. That is not a scientific figure, but it is the kind of figure on which the report was working. On that basis, it was estimated that in 1977, 34,900 such places would be required. The report went on to deal with amenity housing.
The report compared the requirement with what was happening. In 1978 the total number of places completed, under construction, or approved, awaiting a start, was 12,597 for sheltered housing and 6,209 for amenity housing. The report went on to say that adequate resources should be allocated to the sheltered housing programme.
The position has worsened since that time. The report estimated that the capital costs for the sheltered housing programme that was put forward would be £317 million. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that the Government cannot afford that expenditure. Let me remind him, as I have reminded the House on many occasions, that that £317 million is just about the amount — my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will be able to correct me if I am wrong—that we are spending on 1,200 folk 8,000 miles away in the Falkland Islands. If we can afford that in the Falkland Islands, we can afford it for the old folk of Scotland.
It is now five or six years since that report was produced, and the number of elderly people is increasing. The problem is becoming more acute month by month. The number of people aged 65 and over in mid-1984 in Scotland, was 724,600. On the basis of 100 beds per thousand of the over-65s, that would give us a figure of 72,460. The Age Concern document to which my hon.
Friend referred was much more conservative. It gave a figure of 36,230. If one looks at the sheltered housing provision then existing, one sees that the total was 15,948 — considerably less than half what the total provision should have been. There was a shortfall of more than 20,000.
It is a well known fact, with which the Minister would not argue, that every responsible body in Scotland, of all political persuasions and of none—housing associations, local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, trade unions, architects, builders, churches, the National Economic Development Council, the Labour, Liberal and Social Democratic parties, and even members of the royal family — is coming to realise the great dangers of inadequate housing, whether for the young or the old, but particularly for the old. All those organisations, and I suspect many Conservative Members — although only two Back-Bench Tory Scottish Members are here, because they do not care very much about the problem — would assert the need for far greater investment in public housing, not least for our old folk.
Britain's construction record, by international standards, is appalling. As a percentage of gross domestic product spent on construction, our figures are disgraceful. The United Nations figures for 1982 show that Switzerland was spending 16·2 per cent. of its gross domestic product on construction, Canada 14·6 per cent., Finland 13·6 per cent., Ireland 13·2 per cent. — one of the poorest countries in Europe—West Germany 12·7 per cent., France 11·6 per cent., Italy 11·3 per cent., and Sweden 10·7 per cent. The United Kingdom was bottom of the league, at 7·5 per cent., and it is getting worse all the time. That is a disgraceful record. It is an evil record. Like my hon. Friend I despair of the Government doing anything about it, because they just do not care.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: First, what is the Scottish Office's best assessment of the global need in the next two decades for sheltered housing? There must be some figures. If the Minister does not have them, perhaps his Parliamentary Private Secretary will be able to provide them before the Minister replies.
Secondly, there is a problem that I do not think is special pleading for the Linlithgow constituency because other places are in a similar position. Take, for example, Blackburn. Blackburn blossomed forth quickly a quarter of a century ago. It was expanded for the purposes of the then British Motor Corporation and British Leyland. When I first became the Member of Parliament for Linlithgow —West Lothian as it was then—many families in their late twenties and early and middle thirties moved in to expanded Blackburn, expanded Whitburn and expanded Armadale. But it does not need any genius to now that they are mostly aging at the same time. They are communities with special needs because people are suddenly reaching ages between 60 and 70 at the same time, yet there is inadequate sheltered accommodation and accommodation suitable for elderly couples.
That problem could be repeated in many parts of Scotland, although in few areas in such an extreme form as in Blackburn. What is the Scottish Office thinking on areas of special need because of the history of the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Thirdly, I am appalled by the figures given to me by the excellent director of housing in West Lothian, Mr.


John Spraggon, concerning the present demands from one-parent families compared to three or four years ago. What is Scottish Office thinking on one-parent family accommodation? The break-up of marriage involves a single person and sheltered housing—or at least single housing, may be the best answer to the problem.
Fourthly, what thought has been give to the provision of simple, even mundane, medical treatment within sheltered housing — for example, chiropody? The Minister will be aware that there is a shortage of chiropodists and that the queues for treatment are getting longer and longer. Something could be done about that and, in terms of the old proverb "A stitch in time saves nine", it could save endless trouble. Will simple medical facilities—it need not be more than a room—be made available in new sheltered accommodation or in areas of clustered sheltered housing?
The legacy of Coal Board housing is a problem facing the mining areas, if not West Lothian in particular. The condition of such housing varies considerably. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) can confirm that some are in such appalling condition that they must be demolished. In other areas the Coal Board housing is of an extremely high quality and well built—often at the turn of the century. The same can be said of the old Scottish Oils Ltd. housing.
Will the Government have discussions with the Coal Board on the future of this housing in areas where there are no longer, rightly or wrongly, any pits? I am talking specifically about the position in Stoneyburn and the area of Wilson terrace. These areas used to serve the Polkemmet pit, which has been closed, and other pits. The Coal Board has said that housing management is not its forte. The West Lothian council has said that although it could purchase the houses at market price there is no question of improving them out of existing financial resources. I discussed this matter with the chairman of the West Lothian housing committee, Mr. Robert Lee, a serious councillor who told me that the council cannot afford to do the improvements which the long-term tenants understandably ask for.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is saying to sheltered housing for the over-65s. I am sure that he can relate his remarks to the new clause.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to go on and I shall cut my remarks short.
I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on the needs of the construction industry. The industry could play an important part in the matter of sheltered housing and with regard to unemployed building workers and underemployed resources. It may not cost anything like what the Government anticipate, especially when one takes into account the extra taxes that firms would pay, the reduction in uneployment benefit paid out, adjustments to housing benefit, national insurance and the whole social calculus.
Last month I was asked to address the Institution of Civil Engineers and at its request I am preparing to speak to the Forth Valley building employers. When I do this I see how necessary it is for the construction industry to get something of a fillip. Have the costs of creating sheltered housing been taken into account in terms of the social calculus?

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I support the amendment. I am sure that most hon. Members would welcome more sheltered housing for their constituents. I know that some local authorities, especially my own—Falkirk district council—are doing their best to meet the housing need. Recently my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) opened a new sheltered housing complex at Tygetshaugh at Denny in my constituency. My hon. Friend and I spoke to virtually all the residents immediately after the official opening and most were undoubtedly delighted with the new accommodation. However, I am sure that there must have been many more old people who were disappointed because, although the council is doing its best, the Government are not doing enough. The Government are not giving local authorities sufficient funds to meet the housing needs.
The new clause proposes that we should lay down national targets so that each district council would try to ensure that there is sheltered housing for at least 5 per cent. of those people over the age of 65. That would certainly go some way towards meeting the need, provided that the Government have the political will to give sufficient resources to the local authorities.
5.15 pm
A few weeks ago we had a debate on housing support grant and housing capital allocation. The truth of the matter is that many councils are getting nothing by way of housing support grant—that includes Falkirk district council—and councils receive little in terms of housing capital allocation compared with their needs. The Government are not playing the game. I do not wish to see another statutory obligation placed on local authorities unless sufficient support is given by the Government to meet such obligations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke about the Age Concern document which stated that in the case of old people the proportion of their income which goes towards heating their homes is higher than in the population in general. Similarly, the proportion of their income which goes towards housing is higher than the average for the population. When discussing housing and the needs of the elderly it is no use giving them a roof over their heads — they need adequate heating, especially in this weather; otherwise, there may be a health risk, and certainly at this time of the year it could be a matter of life or death. When the transition was made from the old system of rent rebates to the new housing benefit. many old people, including those in sheltered housing, lost out. The Prime Minister did not mention that this afternoon when she was quizzed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) about heating assistance for old people and indeed others on low incomes.
I hope the Minister will adopt a more generous attitude tonight. It is important not just to help the local authorities to meet housing needs, but it is also important to help people to meet their heating requirements. I support the new clause and I hope that if the Government accept the new clause it will be strengthened by more commitment on their part. I am sure such a commitment would be welcomed by old people in sheltered housing and those old people who are literally queueing up for a place in sheltered housing.

Mr. Michael Martin (Glasgow, Springburn): On Saturday, a constituent came to see me at my surgery. He is an elderly gentleman of nearly 80, and he told me that his wife was a stroke victim in the district hospital, which is quite a distance from the constituency. If he misses the bus to get there, he has to get a taxi because there is no other means of transport. The doctor at the hospital had written to say that if my constituent's wife could go into sheltered housing, which would mean that she would be near her daughter in the Bridgeton district of Glasgow, she could be released into the community and a precious place could be made available at the hospital.
My constituent was ashamed at having to ask for help and at having to give details of himself and his family to people like me. He felt as though in some way he was asking for favours. I tried to tell him that the fault did not lie with him. He should not have had to come to us. He should have such accommodation as of right. He was doing the community a service, because at his age he and his daughter were prepared to look after his wife. It was shameful that his wife had to be in hospital because we could not provide sheltered accommodation.
The new clause lets the Government off the hook. More than 5 per cent. of sheltered housing should be available in the council stock. It is a scandal that, in this day and age, elderly people are either confined to hospital or sometimes to their homes without proper back-up, when all that the Government need to do is to give a little more and provide sheltered accommodation. It should not be difficult for the Government to build new sheltered accommodation, or instruct a Government agency such as the Scottish Special Housing Association, and the community-based housing associations, to do so. They could even adapt some of the council housing stock for sheltered housing.
It is time that the Government stopped telling people that everything is all right in sheltered housing, when they know very well that we are in a desperate situation. The Minister knows that a great deal of our housing stock is allocated to people who are under-occupying four or fivebedroomed houses. They were young people when they went into the house and were bringing up young children in the 1950s, or in some cases in the 1940s. Those houses are not being released for families, because we do not have the proper housing stock. It is shameful that some of our elderly tenants get only the support of a home help, sometimes for an hour a day, and in some cases every second day. It is time that the Government did something to alleviate the problems. We are being modest in asking for this small amount of sheltered accommodation.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye): I support the new clause. I echo the comments made by other hon. Members in urging the Government to try to achieve a percentage target for sheltered housing in each local authority in Scotland. That must be underpinned by the requisite finance from the Scottish Office, so that the authorities can meet the target. It would be ludicrous for us to put forward such a proposal without some clear sign from the Scottish Office that it is willing to loosen the purse strings for new build and new start.
I know that the Minister will have heard in Committee from my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) about the highlands and islands. The Minister will be aware of the correspondence

from and exchanges with my hon. Friend and myself over some of the tremendous problems in housing generally being experienced in those areas.
Encouraging a percentage target for sheltered housing in the highlands and islands will accentuate the difficulties experienced elsewhere, because of the increased cost of new build. On the west coast, places such as Fort William and Mallaig, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, and some in my constituency, have persistent housing problems. In places such as Ullapool, Kyle of Lochalsh, Gairloch and Aultbea, the local council, even if it had a percentage target at which to aim, would be hampered more than most local authorities in introducing a programme for increased sheltered housing, because the number of houses that it would be able to complete, with the finance available, would be smaller than the number in areas that are nearer the markets and do not have the problems of haulage and so on. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
We all want more sheltered housing. It is important to set in context the problems that may be emerging in the Highlands regional council at the moment. In the sheltered housing scheme in Achiltibuie, which is about the most remote corner of the north-west of my constituency, because of cuts in other aspects of Government provision to the regional authority, there is a question mark over the provision of a warden for the sheltered housing. This is part of the broader picture. The new clause, which is commendable and has the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and myself, must evoke a response from the Minister that is considerably more sympathetic than other responses. It must recognise the realities of providing sheltered housing, particularly for the elderly, in the highlands and islands.
In the north of Scotland we have a higher average proportion of elderly people, and that is a persistent historical fact. Although not so much in the past few weeks, strangely enough, we also have fairly severe weather conditions in comparison to the rest of Scotland. The weather in other parts of Scotland has been exceptional recently. These factors contribute to the costs that old people must sustain and to the difficulties that have to be met. I hope that the new clause will evoke a positive and supportive response from the Minister.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I understand the concern and interest of Opposition Members and the reasons why the new clause has been tabled. Although the amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), the name of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) also appears on the Amendment Paper. We appreciate the previous incarnation of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and the interest that he has in the subject. However, I am surprised the the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who have supported the new clause wish to impose a new duty on local authorities which removes discretion—although I am sure that that was not the intention—and sets a rigid target. That may well not have been the intention of Opposition Members.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister is nit-picking.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Cathcart accuses me of nit-picking, but I can make more of my point. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman to see the error of his drafting ways. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cathcart understands, even if his hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley does not.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I would like to finish my point and then I will certainly give way.
As the hon. Member for Cathcart will remember, I suggested in Committee that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities may not always be aware of what Opposition Members wish it to do. In terms of the new clause, I have a shrewd suspicion that that is the case and that, were COSLA consulted as to whether it wanted a rigid new clause of this type, it might not be quite so supportive of Opposition Members as it frequently is.

Mr. Maxton: I am delighted to know that COSLA supports me in most of my actions. If the Minister is prepared to give a commitment now that he will move a new clause in another place which states
not less than 5 per cent.",
as he is so concerned about us laying down such a rigid target, I would be perfectly happy, as would my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is trying to fish his way out of trouble. He has not answered the real criticism of the new clause—that it imposes a rigid target on authorities. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley appreciates that.
I would like to put the matter into perspective. It is important because all hon. Members are concerned about the elderly and the housing available for them. I have referred to the need to provide more support housing for the elderly. It is important that hon. Members realise that that housing need not necessarily be sheltered. We should not talk about sheltered housing to the exclusion of other forms of housing, which may be as important and as valuable to elderly people.
The new clause relates to sheltered housing. I am always apprehensive when I see Opposition Members getting up, especially the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) who seems to look at life through glasses that are tinted with something that I cannot understand.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: They are red-tinted.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman says that his glasses are red-tinted but whatever colour they are they tend to distort what he actually sees.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central said that the situation is getting worse in relation to sheltered housing. I would like to give the House one or two figures to help hon. Members appreciate the true position.
In Scotland in 1979, there were 6,877 sheltered houses. By 1985, the last year for which I have figures, there were 17,854. That is very nearly a threefold increase. The total housing for the elderly and disabled in Scotland in 1979 was 12,570. In 1985 it was 34,438. Again, that is nearly a threefold increase.
It is important that, if hon. Members wish to make speeches, they do so with a full knowledge of the facts. Local authorities are already under a duty to consider the

housing conditions in their districts and the needs of the district with respect to the provision of further housing accommodation. That gives the authorities both discretion and duty in provision. The new clause takes away that discretion and replaces it with a requirement to provide bed spaces for 5 per cent. of the population over 65 years of age.

Dame Judith Hart: Will the Minister relate the figures for sheltered housing to the increasing ratio of the elderly in the population? Without that comparison the figures are meaningless.

Mr. Ancram: I intend to do that. I shall give the detailed figures that will answer the right hon. Member's question.
The recommended rate, as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said, is of 50 bed spaces per thousand people aged over 65. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was slightly confused about the figures that he gave, as he mixed bed spaces and units. The recommendation endorsed by COSLA and subsequently endorsed by the Government, is 50 bed spaces per thousand of the elderly over 65.

Mr. Foulkes: Old couples do share beds.

Mr. Ancram: Couples sometimes share units as well, and the hon. Gentleman must be aware of that.
The average provision in the whole of Scotland at present is 47 bed spaces per thousand population over 65. That is 4·7 per cent. and is not far off the 5 per cent. that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley requires.
I have already referred to some of the increases since 1979. Those increases have allowed us to reach a position which, while it is not quite at the target of the recommended level, is close to it. There have been percentage increases in the various forms of housing for the elderly as follows. In sheltered housing there has been a 65 per cent. increase between 1979 and 1985. in sheltered wheelchair housing there has been an increase of 295 per cent. over the same period. In amenity housing there has been an increase of 115 per cent. over that period and there has been a total increase of 154 per cent. over that period. The growth in population aged 65 and over was 1 per cent. to the mid-point of 1984. There has been a considerable advance in that time in terms of actual provision.
Areas such as West Lothian, referred to by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and Midlothian, in which Opposition Members have an interest, provide only six and four bed spaces respectively per thousand of population over 65. That reveals that elsewhere in Scotland provision is well in excess of the guide figures that have been proposed.
In view of the accusations and allegations, particularly from the hon. Member for Fife, Central, I would like to give more figures. The number of persons in Scotland over the age of 65 is 724,624. At present there are 32,810 sheltered bed spaces in Scotland and 1,348 wheelchair sheltered bed spaces. These figures amount to 47 bed spaces per thousand persons over the age of 65. There are, however, variations within those figures. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) spoke about the islands and the remoter areas. Authorities such as Shetland have 173 bed spaces per thousand of the


population over 65. Badenoch and Strathspey, which are rather closer to the hon. Gentleman, have 123 bed spaces per thousand of the population. Ross and Cromarty have 51 bed spaces and are therefore up to target.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I will give way in a moment.

Skye and Lochalsh have 50. They are up to target.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member must allow me to finish this point. He deployed some figures the other day and I want to deploy my figures now.
There are authorities, including city authorities such as Dundee, which provide 184 bed spaces per thousand of the population over 65.
It is important to recognise that while there are areas where bed space provision in terms of sheltered housing is much lower than it should be—these areas must be working to meet the targets—there are other areas that have provision well above the recommended level. The overall figures in Scotland are nearly up to the recommended level endorsed by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.

Mr. Foulkes: This is the most central point in comparing figures. My understanding of the recommendation included in the circular—I admit that that was a Labour Government circular which may have been abandoned or changed by the present Government—was that the recommended level was 50 units per thousand. The Minister seems to have transposed that to bed spaces. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us when that change took place. It is clear from the document issued by Age Concern, which analyses the statistics, that the understanding is that it should be units per thousand. I have been working on that basis and my hon. and right hon. Friends understand that the base is 50 units per thousand. When did this sleight of hand by the Government take place? When did they change the sheltered housing units to bed spaces?

Mr. Ancram: It is my understanding that the measure has always been bed spaces. The figure of 50 per thousand arises from a survey carried out for the whole of Britain in 1962, and was incorporated in the Scottish housing handbook as helpful guidance to local authorities when the Labour Government were in office. I am being handed a piece of paper which confirms that. The number of people requiring this sort of accommodation is best assessed on the basis of bed spaces which they will take up. I know from having opened some sheltered accommodation units that some are for single people and others for married couples. Therefore, that is the correct way to deal with the matter.
It is important that hon. Members recognise that the ratio is on a national basis. Local authorities should have the discretion, which the new clause would remove from them, to decide how far they meet or exceed the ratio, depending on the circumstances in their localities. Equally, it must be right that local authorities judge their overall housing needs and priorities. In that way the needs for sheltered housing can be assessed against the

requirement for other accommodation within the bounds of what the authority, and ultimately the country, can afford.
At present sheltered housing is provided in many ways, not just by local authorities. The housing associations with public resources provide some of the accommodation contained in the figures that I mentioned. There is private investment in sheltered housing. A local housing authority would take account of all those matters in considering the needs of its area, especially its need to provide sheltered housing.

Mr. Kennedy: The Minister probably made the point clear when he quoted the ratio figures earlier, but am I correct in thinking that those figures referred only to local authority provision, and did not take other forms of sheltered housing provision into account?

Mr. Ancram: Even the new clause is not clear on that. It states that the responsibility of each district council in Scotland will be
to ensure that there is sheltered Housing available for 5 per cent. of its resident population over the age of 65 years.
As nothing was said to the contrary, I assumed that that included sheltered housing provided by housing associations. They continue to contribute to the level of sheltered housing and bed spaces within sheltered houses for the community. It is important to realise that both local authorities and other agencies have an important role to play, and have been playing it.

Mr. Kennedy: Our emphasis has been on local authorities. There is a hint in the Minister's reply that the figures that he gave did not refer only to local authority provision, but included all the other forms of provision. Will the Minister clarify that?

Mr. Ancram: It is generaly accepted that local authorities are not expected to provide for all housing needs. They must form a strategic overview for their areas, and marshall resources to meet local needs, working in cooperation with other agencies, such as housing associations, the Scottish Special Housing Association, new town development corporations and the private sector. That is part of a housing authority's general strategy, and does not apply only to sheltered housing. Private developers are now making a significant contribution to the special needs housing sector which until now has been provided by the public sector. The fact that provision is coming from the private sector does not diminish the value of the accommodation.

Mr. Kennedy: What about the figures?

Mr. Ancram: My figures cover all the ways in which sheltered housing has been provided. Much of the total is made up by housing association provision.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister confirm that all his figures have been for bed spaces, not sheltered housing? There is a difference.

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would know that I gave the original figures separately from the bed space figures. The original figures for the increase in shelterd houses were 6,877 in 1979 rising to 17,854 in 1985. Within those houses there are varying numbers of bed spaces. I said that the hon. Member for Cathcart appeared to be confused about bed spaces and houses. We are talking about providing accommodation for a recommended number of elderly


people, that is 50 per thousand of the population. The number of sheltered houses that have been built has increased threefold since 1979. None of us is complacent, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the figure in the new clause is almost met at present.
5.45 pm
I would he the first to admit that more work needs to be done for the elderly. I have recognised the needs of local authorities by increasing their capital allocations over two years by 43 per cent. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) continues to consider that increase a reduction, but authorities which have seen substantial increases in their capital allocations realise that they have more resources available to do what they want, and that is right.
The new clause, as it stands. would make poor law and would not be welcomed by local authorities. On further consideration I am sure that the hon. Member for Cathcart will consider that it should be withdrawn. If he does not, I must invite the House to reject it.

Mr. Maxton: Once again we have an example of how the Government and the Minister cannot make up their minds whether they are in favour of extra public expenditure on housing, or whether their economic philosophy leads them to reject that. The Minister keeps trying to prove that he is a generous, liberal man when it comes to housing matters, but all of us, including our constituents and his, know that that is not the case. We know that overall the Government have cut housing expenditure by 50 per cent. since they came to office, and that sheltered housing—

Mr. Ancram: What did the Labour Government do?

Mr. Maxton: We are talking about the Tory Government. They have been in power for nearly seven years, yet their only answer to any case that is made is, "What did you do about it?" They know that the Scottish people reject them and have no interest in their policies, so they can only drag in what is becoming increasingly ancient history.

Mr. Ancram: The hon Gentleman has got back on his old high horse about cuts in capital expenditure on housing in Scotland. He knows that that is incorrect, so I shall not refer to it. He also knows that last week his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) announced that a Labour Government would increase expenditure on housing by between £4 billion and £5 billion. The hon. Member for Garscadden shakes his head, but if he reads The Scotsman of Friday 28 February he will find himself quoted there in connection with a major policy document. Perhaps he would like to explain to the House from where the extra money will come, and why, having seen a cut of 37 per cent. in housing under the Labour Government, anyone should believe that a future Labour Government would increase spending.

Mr. Bruce Milian: That was a waste of time.

Mr. Maxton: I agree with my right hon. Friend that, as usual, the Minister is trying every last possible way to divert attention from the effects of his housing policy. He is trying to curry favour with his Back Benchers, who have a great deal of interest in the condition of housing in Scotland.
When the Minister tried to say how well the Government had done in Scotland in providing sheltered housing, he made no effort to set the increase in sheltered housing against the increase in the numbers of elderly. He than switched the attack from sheltered housing to bed spaces for the elderly, and he used every diversionary tactic to get away from the basic argument that the Government are failing the elderly in our society. He does not even have any of his hon. Friends present on the Government Benches to say, "Hear, hear," when he does make a few comments. The Minister even went back to 1962 to dig up that argument.
All the organisations which are concerned with this issue are worried, not about bed space, but about sheltered housing for those who are in need in our society. There has been a change in thinking and in the way in which society approaches the elderly, particularly those who are not as capable of looking after themselves as they once were. In the past we provided homes for the elderly to go into. Increasingly, and rightly, the aim is to allow the elderly to stay in society and live among their friends for as long as is humanly possible. Therefore, since 1962 there has been a shift in the way in which we look at the problem.
The problem is not just the lack of sheltered housing, but the way in which the Government have slashed the services for the elderly in a variety of other ways. In my constituency we talk about amenity housing. In my constituency houses are provided for the elderly in Dougrie place. An alarm system has been in place from those houses to an old folks home, Glenwood Lodge, for the past six years, but the system came into operation only last month because the Strathclyde region did not have the resources to be able to afford the extra staff in the old folks home to allow it to become operative. It is not just a matter of sheltered housing. There has been an overall decline in the way in which the Government treat the elderly.
I do not accept the answers that the Minister has given, but I accept tht there may be defects in the way in which the new clause is drafted. That is always possible when the Opposition draft amendments without the help of the advisers that the Ministers have, and without the help of the parliamentary draftsmen. The Minister claims that the clause is an inflexible and rigid imposition upon local authorities and that they ought to be allowed to decide their future in such matters. The Government insist on the right to buy, they insist that every local authority should sell its council houses, and they insist that the money local authorities may borrow for building must be limited by the Government, but whenever it suits the Government's purpose they use the shoddy argument that local authorities must have the right to decide. That is a shoddy argument coming from the Minister, who has made every effort to tighten and centralise control over local authorities. It is a spurious argument coming from his lips.
I accept that the wording of the new clause may be defective. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

HOUSING FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED

'In subsection 11 of section 1 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(d) where a dwelling house is one of a group all or a significant proportion of which have been provided for letting to mentally-handicapped persons.".'.—[Mr. Milian.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Milan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, tine 9 at end insert
'except that section 1(1) of the 1980 Act shall not apply to property owned by the housing associations in paragraph (e) which have been provided to meet special needs.'.
Government amendments No. 13, 15 and 16.

Mr. Milan: The effect of the new clause would be to exclude from the right-to-buy provisions of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 housing specifically provided for the mentally handicapped. I tabled the new clause before the Government had tabled their amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 16. On the matter of the mentally handicapped my new clause goes wider than the Government amendments.
The problem of housing for the mentally handicapped has been drawn to my attention and, I am sure, to the attention of other hon. Members, by the Key housing association which happens to have an extremely fine development, partly hostel and partly ordinary dwelling-house accommodation, in my constituency. Therefore, I know its work and I admire the work that it has done and continues to do. It has been concerned, as are other housing associations, at the effects of the Bill which, as originally drafted, would have imposed the right-to-buy provisions on housing associations as a whole, without qualification. I need not go into the argument for that, except to say that the Opposition are opposed to the extension to the housing associations of the right-to-buy provisions. There was a perfectly adequate voluntary code operating before the Bill was introduced.
I do not want to go into the more general arguments, I want to deal specifically with housing for the mentally handicapped, which, without special provision in the Bill, would not be excluded under the normal provisions of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. As I understand it, the provision in section 1(11)(c) deals with housing which has special facilities designed or adapted for the needs of elderly or disabled persons.
The Key housing association, in relation to its provision for the mentally handicapped, says that its objective is to provide such people with care and support appropriate to their needs to enable them to live in the community in a home which is as normal as possible without any specially designed features such as warden call systems or other adaptations. In a sense, it is quite different from providing normal sheltered accommodation for, for example, very elderly where there are usually adaptations, or at least the provision of warden accommodation. Such adaptations are not necessary in some cases when one is providing housing for the mentally handicapped. It is part of the policy of the Key housing association not to provide special facilities

but to try to make the accommodation as normal as possible, although it might be part of a complex which also includes hostel accommodation. As the Bill was originally drafted such accommodation would not have been excluded from the right to buy.
I am aware that since I tabled my new clause the Government have tabled their own amendments, Nos. 13, 15 and 16. Although we naturally welcome any concessions by the Government in respect of housing associations, the amendments do not fully reach the point which is dealt with in my new clause. The substantive Government amendment is No. 16 and, as far as I can see —I hope that the Minister will explain it clearly—the amendment deals with two separate issues. I am not fortunate enough to have been a member of the Committee and I must confess that I have not read the appropriate pieces on the matter, but I know that Government amendment No. 16 is in response to criticism made by the housing associations and by my hon. Friends and others in Committee.
As far as I can see, the first part of amendment No. 16, which adds a paragraph (f) to section 1(11) of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, deals with the definition of charities and charitable housing associations. Although I would welcome an additional provision covering housing associations, I think that this measure is expressed in unnecessarily restrictive terms. Paragraph (f)(i) of Government amendment No. 16 refers to claims for exemption from tax
in respect of all periods from 3 October 1980".
I believe that this means that no new charitable association will be able to operate under these terms. That is ludicrous, grossly unfair and unjust. The Government have conceded a point with respect to charity-based housing associations. I see no earthly reason why the provision should be restricted in that way. I hope that that restriction will be removed before the Bill reaches the statute book.
6 pm
Paragraph (g) of Government amendment No. 16 deals specifically with those suffering mental handicap. Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that the reference to "mental disorder" includes mental handicap as well as mental illness? I assume that it does. Paragraph (g) completely unnecessarily links the concession, which deals not only with mental disorder but ex-prisoners and certain other categories, to housing association landlords. I understand that the words
a common landlord, being a landlord so mentioned"—
in the previous paragraphs — link paragraph (g) to charity-based housing associations. That is ludicrous.
If there is a case, as the Government have acknowledged there is, for saying that certain categories —in which at least half the houses are let to persons suffering mental disorder, mental handicap or mental illness, to persons released from prison or to young persons who have left the care of a local authority—should be excluded from the right-to-buy provisions of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, it matters not one bit whether the houses concerned are provided by a charity-based housing association, another housing association or a local authority. It is the nature of the housing provision that is important. It is therefore unnecessary and wrong for paragraph (g) as I read it—I should be delighted to be told that I am misreading it—to be linked with paragraph (f), which deals with a small category of charity-based housing associations.
We have agreed on the principle that housing for the mentally handicapped should be excluded from the right-to-buy provisions. That exclusion should apply across the board to local authorities that decide to build houses of this type. To be fair, I am not aware that local authorities have provided such housing, but that is a deficiency. It is not an argument for not providing proper provisions in the Bill.
The same principle must apply to the other categories covered in paragraph (g), which includes
persons who have been released from prison
and
young persons who have left the care of a local authority".
Why should not a local authority provide for those categories? If it does, the argument for excluding those dwelling houses from the right-to-buy provisions is as valid as it is with respect to housing associations.
Paragraph (g) imposes another restriction. It states that the group of dwelling houses is not to exceed 14. I am not sure where the figure of 14 originated, unless it was to provide for existing developments known to the Government. I see no reason why that restriction should be included in the amendment.
The Government have acknowledged that the Bill is defective as originally drafted. They have acknowledged that there is a strong case for making further exemptions in the right-to-buy provisions. New clause 5 provides that in the case of mental handicap the exemption should be wider than that provided by the Government in Government amendment No. 16. Although new clause 5 does not mention the other categories, I believe that the argument is as valid for the other categories of discharged prisoners and young persons leaving the care of a local authority. I believe that, if the Under-Secretary of State will accept the principle of new clause 5, the Bill will have to be further amended to take account of these other categories.

Mr. Ancram: It might be helpful if I speak at this stage because most of the amendments linked with new clause 5 are Government amendments. I think it is clear from the speech of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) that it would be helpful if I were to explain the meaning of the rather legal terminology in the amendments.
New clause 5 seeks to exempt from the right-to-buy provisions certain houses provided to meet special needs. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will recall, we discussed this matter at some length in Committee. We have brought forward our own proposals in Government amendment No. 16. New clause 5 is more limited—I think that the right hon. Member for Govan appreciated this point—in scope than the amendments we have tabled because it relates only to people suffering from mental handicap. Other categories are included in the Government amendments.
I can confirm that the term "mental disorder" covers mental handicap. Section 1(2) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 defines mental disorder as meaning
mental illness or mental handicap however caused or manifested.
It is clear from our consultation with housing associations that there are other types of special needs which are provided for in integrated schemes. They include persons suffering from addiction to alcohol or other drugs, persons who have been recently released from prison and young persons who are leaving care.
In another sense—this touches on something that the right hon. Member for Govan said—new clause 5 goes wider than the Government believe necessary or appropriate. It would, as the right hon. Gentleman said, apply to all landlords, not just housing associations.

Mr. Maxton: Why?

Mr. Ancram: I shall explain that. The right hon. Member for Govan implied that the landlord referred to in the amendment was just a charitable housing association under the new definition. I am informed that the provision covers housing associations in general.

Mr. Millan: It is not clear in paragraph (g) what "a landlord so mentioned" is. There are references to a landlord in paragraph (f), but I am not clear whether it is always the same landlord. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would clarify that point.

Mr. Ancram: It was my understanding on my reading of the amendments when they were drafted and according to my instructions that the amendments covered housing associations generally.

Dame Judith Hart: And local authorities?

Mr. Ancram: Not local authorities. That is the point I have just made. The amendments cover housing associations. I shall check that, because it is important that the drafting should be technically correct. That is certainly my understanding. I realise that other landlords are involved in the original legislation but I am not aware that other landlords have integrated schemes of the type which we are trying to preserve. It is true that social work authorities let houses to the mentally handicapped. I understand that in general such houses tend to be leased from the relevant district council. Because the regional council is not the proprietor, the tenants do not have a right to buy. A further objection is that new clause 5 seeks to exempt all houses let to the mentally handicapped, irrespective of whether any social work service is provided in connection with them.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to provide that the right to buy shall not apply to property owned by housing associations which has been provided to meet special needs. Again I have to say that this amendment is much wider than is necessary or acceptable. A practical drawback is that the phrase "special need" is not defined. We have to ask who is to decide that a house has been provided to meet special needs. Is it to be the landlord? If that were the case, would not this give housing associations a very wide scope to deny to tenants the right to buy their homes?
As I explained in Committee, I believe that the existing provisions of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 do all that is necessary and justified to safeguard special needs houses for the elderly and the disabled. In my view, these provisions have worked well for local authorities where they have been applied since 1980, and they will be extended to housing associations when, by this legislation, their tenants are given the right to buy.
I did accept, however, that there was one type of scheme which was not covered by the present provisions and which merited further consideration. These are integrated schemes, where mainstream housing is linked with appropriate support services, with the aim of providing care and support in the community for groups such as ex-offenders and the mentally handicapped. The idea is that selected tenants, who act as what are called


"caring neighbours", should be allocated ordinary general needs houses, but in close proximity to tenants who require special support.
In these circumstances, the houses clearly are not physically different from ordinary houses and the tenants would ordinarily have the right to buy. We are therefore bringing forward an amendment — it is the first subparagraph (g) of amendment No. 16—for such schemes to be exempted from the right to buy. The amendment has been drafted following consultation with a number of housing associations which have schemes of this type. In order to prevent abuse by going too wide, we are placing a ceiling of 14 houses as the maximum number which may be included in any one scheme, and we are providing that at least half must be let to people who fall into the special categories that we have listed.
These criteria are common to the vast majority of schemes which we have discussed. We are limiting the exemption to the categories of special need that we know are presently catered for in such schemes. However, we are taking a power—the new subsection (11A) that is provided for later in the same amendment — to add further categories to the list by order. This recognises that such schemes may develop into new areas of provision which we cannot foresee at present, and it will permit us to take account of such developments, as seems necessary and appropriate.
I hope that the House will accept that this is a significant concession designed to meet the concerns felt in Committee and the views expressed to us by housing associations and other interested bodies. The amendment recognises a type of development which is unique to housing associations and which is also, I understand, peculiarly Scottish.
Charitable housing associations are also dealt with in the amendments. The Bill as currently drafted provides exemption from the right to buy for those housing associations which are registered with the Charity Commissioners under the Charities Act 1960. There are perhaps three or four English associations that are registered under that Act which also operate in Scotland. These associations already enjoy exemption from the right to buy in England and it was clearly necessary to afford them the same exemption in Scotland.
6.15 pm
The question of charitable status for housing associations registered in Scotland is a rather different issue, since the Charities Act does not extend to Scotland. In appropriate circumstances, Scottish associations are able to adopt charitable rules and to apply to the Inland Revenue for charitable status for tax purposes under section 360 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.
The question of exemption from the right to buy for Scottish associations with charitable status for tax purposes was raised at Second Reading and was debated at length in Committee. Representations were made to me that if these associations sold houses at a discount they would lose their charitable status, with potentially serious consequences for their viability. I agreed in Committee to take the question away and look at it again. In particular, I recognised that there were a number of associations which had enjoyed such status from an early date and

which had developed their everyday functions in ways that properly utilised the tax benefits to support particular types of activity. On the other hand, an overall exemption for Scottish associations with charitable tax status would effectively have denied to a substantial number of tenants of general needs housing the right to buy the houses in which they live.
I was not persuaded that the preservation of an association's tax status should automatically take precedence over the rights of its tenants to buy their homes. This gave rise to the problem of identifying a definition which struck the correct balance between the rights of the individual tenant and those of the association as a whole. I believe that the proposals that I am now placing before the House strike an appropriate balance between these two competing objectives.
Under amendment No. 16, the new sub-paragraph (f), to be inserted in section 1(11) of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, would provide exemption from the right to buy for those Scottish housing associations which were registered with the housing corporation, under charitable rules, from the outset and which have had charitable status for tax purposes continuously since October 1980. It therefore affords exemption from the right to buy and thus protection for their charitable tax status to those associations which were set up initially on a charitable basis prior to the introduction of the right to buy for public sector tenants in Scotland and for housing association tenants in England and Wales and, indeed, the introduction of the voluntary code.
The tax status of an individual housing association based in Scotland is not at present a matter of public record, unlike charitable status in England. I cannot therefore be precise about the position of individual associations in relation to the new definition. It seems likely, however, that the extended definition will lead to about 30 to 35 individual associations with a total stock in the region of 12,000 houses being excluded entirely from the right to buy. In terms of housing stock, this represents a not insignificant proportion of the Scottish total of about 39,000 units.
Because of the uncertainty concerning tax status I do not wish to quote individual associations, but we believe that the definition now proposed will cover the major special needs associations and many of those with a mixture of special needs and general needs stock. These, we believe, include the major recipients—this point was raised in Committee — of the pre-1974 Shelter funds which was a matter of importance not only to Opposition Members but also to me, given my interest in Shelter at that time.

Mr. Maxton: I should be grateful if the Minister would say why pre-October 1980 is so important.

Mr. Ancram: I thought that I had made it clear that the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 became operative on 3 October 1980. That was the date when the statutory right to buy was created. I understand, although I would not be categoric about it, that it was about that time also that the voluntary code was agreed with the housing associations. I am dating it back to the time when the right to buy became available not only for public sector tenants in Scotland but also for housing association tenants south of the border.
There are a number of other parts of the amendment which will insert three new provisions into section 1 of the


Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act, two of which are directly concerned with the operation of a new exemption for Scottish associations with charitable tax status. The new subsection (11B) will permit the Inland Revenue to disclose necessary taxation information to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the housing corporation in order to determine the status of an individual association in relation to the exemption from the right to buy. The new subsection (11C) requires the housing corporation to record on the register of housing associations the identity of those associations which are exempt from the right to buy under these provisions and to amend the entries subsequently if the position of an association changes. These two powers are required to ensure that the position of any individual association is properly determined and that, where appropriate, a record of its exemption from the right to buy is publicly available.
The other amendments relating to charitable status are more straightforward and I do not need to deal with them, unless hon. Members wish me to do so. With this group of amendments I have gone a significant way towards meeting the concern of the traditionally charitable Scottish housing associations while maintaining a proper balance between the rights of individual tenants and those of the associations. We have also honoured our commitment to look again at the position of certain special needs schemes.
In the light of this explanation I hope that the right hon. Member for Govan will withdraw his new clause and amendment No. 3.
I commend amendments Nos. 12, 15 and 16 to the House when they are called.

Sir Russell Johnston: I support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). He spoke clearly and concisely, so it is not necessary for me to say much about it. No doubt he accepts that the wording is not as legally precise as the parliamentary draftsmen would demand, and would be happy if the intent of his amendment were accepted by the Government. I go along with that.
The Government have been extraordinarily slapdash and cavalier from the outset about the general problem of charities and about the difficulty of the difference between England and Scotland. The Minister looks dumbfounded, but I should have thought it reasonable to expect the Government to be better prepared before introducing legislation.
I have here a letter from the Minister dated 20 December 1985, in response to a letter from me complaining that on Second Reading he could not answer questions about charitable status put to him by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), myself and others. I shall leave out the "injured innocence" start to the letter and quote simply one paragraph:
Although the powers of the Charity Commissioners do not extend to Scotland, I am aware that a few English registered Charities Act housing associations are operating here on a limited scale".
The Minister this evening was not sure whether there are three or four; I point out for his benefit that there are four. They are not all that limited. I do not think the British Legion could be regarded as operating on a limited scale. The letter continued:
Because compulsory sales at a discount would be in conflict with Charities Act registration, tenants of these associations have been excluded from the Right to Buy. Tenants of such associations are already excluded in England and Wales, although otherwise eligible tenants have been given a right to

equivalent assistance with the purchase of a different house on the open market. The Bill provides for the power to introduce a similar scheme in Scotland should it be required. In framing the legislation, I considered carefully the question of whether tenants of Scottish housing associations which are accepted by the Inland Revenue as being 'charitable for tax purposes' should also be exluded from the 'Right to buy'. On balance I decided they should not.
The original intention of the Government was to exclude Scottish-based charities. The Government amendment changes that drastically. I accept what the Minister said. It represents a significant retreat because of the justifiable pressure that was put on him. However, the amendment includes only Scottish-based charities registered by the income tax authorities before 1980. What does that mean? It means that no new Scottish-based charity will be possible in housing, even in the very narrow area of the mentally handicapped that was quoted by the right hon. Member for Govan. Such charities cannot get charitable status, as I read the amendment. That is inconsistent and unfair. I do not think that that is a good basis on which the Government should proceed.
What happened to the proposal for equivalent assistance? The letter said:
The Bill provides for the power to introduce a similar scheme in Scotland".
Perhaps we will get that in another place.

Mr. Ancram: That power is already in the Bill. I did not go into detail on all the elements of the amendments but the hon. Gentleman will find that some of the amendments in the group being discussed relate to it.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Minister saying that that power will be exercised?

Mr. Ancram: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said in Committee. Obviously we shall wish to set up a scheme. At this stage it is our intention to consider the English scheme as a basis but we will want to consider what scheme would be best. The power to do so is in the Bill and the intention to provide something along those lines has been stated.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful for that. The Minister has made a significant retreat. I think he said that approximately 12,000 houses will be covered. That is welcome, lest the Minister says that I am being ungenerous.
I do not understand how the Minister could have the gall to declare at the Dispatch Box that a fair balance—I think that was the expression he used—is equivalent to an inconsistent proposal. The proposal is inconsistent. Legislation should be consistent as far as possible and should not create new instances of unfairness at the same time as it removes others.

Dame Judith Hart: I echo what has just been said. I was not on the Committee but because of representations from Age Concern and Shelter and because of my interest in one housing association I have read the considerable proceedings in Committee. If I were in the Minister's position, as I once was, I would be ashamed if I had introduced a Bill simply on the proposition of the right to buy without understanding the problems that would arise when the principle was examined in relation to housing associations. I would be ashamed if I had to make such a retreat, although it is very welcome.
The Minister should have foreseen what would happen. Any Minister responsible for such a Bill should have asked


the officials who helped to draft it, "What is the snag about this clause?", and, "What is the problem about that clause?" He should not have had to concede now, although I welcome the concession.
I welcome subsection (11A) in amendment No. 16, which will give the Minister power to amend by order and to add to the list of classes of special need. That is wise and sensible. The Bill is limited to people who are mentally handicapped, people released from prison or other institutions and young persons who have been in the care of a local authority. Those three limited groups have been brought to the Minister's attention during the consideration of the Bill. In the course of time he may want to extend the provision to other groups which may come to his attention.
On the first part of amendment No. 16 about charities, as the Minister knows, I had tabled an amendment about the New Lanark association, I understand that that amendment could not be called. The Minister has visited New Lanark and is aware of the background to the problem, but for the benefit of those who have not visited it recently, may I explain that New Lanark is a special case in a category of its own? It was founded in the early sixties to conserve and restore the old Robert Owen village which is the best example of industrial architecture of its period anywhere in Britain. A remarkable job has been done so far. Therefore, one is worried. The New Lanark association has been in correspondence with the Minister, as have I. I hope that amendment No. 16 covers the case but I cannot be sure. Perhaps the Minister can help me.
6.30 pm
Tax relief is not the only consideration. New Lanark has houses that are owner-occupied and others that are rented and if it is to be able to undertake a conservation and modernisation exercise it must be able to retain planning control that takes into account a balance between owner-occupation and renting. That is essential for planning purposes as well as for finance.
The Minister will appreciate that it would be absurd if any problems were put in the way of New Lanark's redevelopment. He will be aware that money has been provided to New Lanark through the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, the Ancient Monuments Society, the Scottish Tourist Board, the Countryside Commission, the Scottish Development Agency and the Manpower Services Commission. Many forms of help have come from central Government as well as from local government. It would be extremely unwise to place any barriers in the way of the remaining development of New Lanark and I am sure that the Minister would not wish to do so.
Paragraph (f)(ii) reads:
registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1985".
The new New Lanark association was set up on 6 December 1963–I understand that the documents bear my own signature—under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1893. Model H7 1962 provides charitable status. I must confess that since the Government's amendments were tabled — we have had a weekend between their appearance and this debate—I have not had time to read the 1965 Act to ascertain the extent to which it consolidates the 1893 Act and whether there is any relevant difference between the two measures. I need to know — this is crucial, and if the Minister finds

himself in any difficulty I hope that he will table a small amendment in another place—that the reference to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 will include provision under the 1893 Act. That is something which the New Lanark association needs to know as well.
Everything may be all right and the 1965 Act may have wrapped up everything in the 1893 Act, but we need to know whether that is the position. The Minister will appreciate that it is a considerable exercise to read through consolidation Acts, and even if one does it is not always possible to be sure that one's understanding of their effect is correct. I feel that the Minister has better facilities at his disposal to undertake that exercise than I do, or even the Library.
If all is well, I shall be happy, and so will the New Lanark association. The association was set up as a charitable institution and it is a registered friendly society. We need to know whether the amendment would cover the way in which it was registered under the industrial and provident societies legislation and the moment when that took place. That having been said, I would welcome the Minister's reassurance. If he is in any doubt, I should welcome also an assurance that an amendment will be introduced in another place — for example, if it is necessary to amend the wording to cover the issue which I have raised.

Mr. Maxton: I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) has said. I have visited New Lanark recently with my right hon. Friend and I have great admiration for the work that has been done there. I used to take students to New Lanark in a previous incarnation for them to see the industrial village as part of a historical exercise. I am sure that the Minister, as a historian, would welcome the work that has been done in New Lanark. The Minister should at least respond to my right hon. Friend in writing after he has investigated the matter which she has brought to his attention. I think that the New Lanark association will be exempt from the right to buy.

Dame Judith Hart: We must be sure.

Mr. Maxton: I cannot give a guarantee to my right hon. Friend. I am not the Minister and it is for him to give guarantees.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) will excuse me if I deal first with Government amendment No. 16. I am a generous-hearted man, and I, like Christ, will welcome one sinner who is converted, even though in this instance he had to be pushed extremely hard before conversion. However, I welcome the concessions that the Minister has made for charities and special-need housing in relation to housing associations. Perhaps the amendment goes further than the Minister conceded when he replied to a debate on these issues in Committee.
Government concessions are always to be welcomed, but, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and others have said, it should not have been necessary for the Government to introduce a major amendment at this stage to the most contentious part of the Bill that deals with the right to buy and housing associations. It has been proved beyond doubt that the Minister's argument that he consulted the housing associations was wrong and that the associations' contention that they were never consulted about the


Government's proposals was entirely right. If the Government had consulted the associations before introducing the Bill, they would not have found themselves in a mess and they would not have found it necessary to table such a major amendment.
The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations wrote to several hon. Members, including myself, to the effect, "At long last the Government have been prepared to consult us." It claimed that that was the first occasion that they had done so since the provisions in the Bill were proposed. We welcome that consultation and we welcome the Government's amendments.
The Opposition's view is that the Minister could have gone the whole way on charity status. Unfortunately, he has not removed all the anomalies. There are anomalies between charitable status and registration of housing associations in England and Wales and the equivalent status and registration in Scotland. Total exemption would not have solved the problems.
In England and Wales there are 480,000 houses owned by housing associations, of which 380,000 are exempt. The associations which own them are exempt from the right to buy because they are registered charities. Even if there were total exemption of housing associations in Scotland that have charitable status and work under the charity rules, the same proportion of houses in Scotland would not be exempt.
If a new housing association were established in England or Wales tomorrow and it registered as a charity and was accepted as such by the commission under its rules, all the tenants of the houses which it purchased, repaired, renovated or built would be excluded from the right to buy. That would not be the position in Scotland. If a new housing association were established tomorrow in Scotland and it applied to the Inland Revenue for charitable status and undertook exactly the same work as housing associations set up prior to 1980, it would not be exempt from the right-to-buy provisions. Exemption will not extend to several housing associations which have been set up since 1980 and now operate under the charity rules.
The Tenants' Rights, Etc. Act (Scotland) 1980, which came into force on 3 October of that year, specifically excluded housing associations from the right to buy, but that has no relevance to the argument for exemption. The generous and logical thing to do is to say that housing associations in Scotland that can prove to the Inland Revenue that they act as charities should enjoy the same privileges as charitable associations in England and Wales. Perhaps I am being ungenerous, but I believe that the reason for the Government amendments, as for the Bill, is the desire to preserve the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West Society. The Link housing association has only recently been given charitable recognition. If the Minister did the logical thing, tenants of the association would no longer have the right to buy. I see no other reason for the cut-off date.
Why has the Minister not incorporated the ability to amend in paragraph (f) of amendment No. 16, as he has in the rest of the Bill? He might like to say that the enactment of the Bill would be a more suitable date from which to recognise housing associations as charities. The 1980 date cannot be changed except by primary legislation. I hope that the Minister in another place will reconsider.
As for new clause 5, my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan is quite right. He always is. I had my arguments with him when he was Secretary of State and I had a different job. I see no reason why the Government's generosity to housing associations cannot be extended to local authorities, as they provide special needs housing which goes much further than homes for the physically handicapped and the elderly.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to withdraw his new clause if paragraph (g) could be operated by local authorities, the Housing Corporation and the Scottish Special Housing Association. That would demonstrate the Government's willingness to admit that there is a problem with special needs housing. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, I shall happily support my right hon. Friend's new clause.

Mr. Ancram: I am quite surprised by the attitude of some hon. Members, especially of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). He seems to consider it better for the Government to go through Committee stage without making any concessions than to listen to the arguments, assess their value and, if necessary, make concessions. I appreciate that Labour Members consider the former to be the correct behaviour, but I always thought that the Liberal party described itself as a thinking party, which likes to chew things over. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber would at least have welcomed the process as a result of which the amendments have been presented. I suspect that his problem is that he is getting close to having to vote for a practical example of the right to buy, and possibly even in its favour. He has scrupulously avoided doing that so far.

Sir Russell Johnston: I was merely saying that I admire the fact that the Minister has redeemed himself but that he had not shown adequate repentance.

Mr. Ancram: I have listened to the arguments and I believe that my response is sustainable and justifiable.
I explained earlier why we cannot extend the integrated scheme in principle to local authorities. I do not believe that it is required.

Mr. Maxton: If local authorities say that the right should be applied to them arid can illustrate a need, will the Minister consider the matter?

Mr. Ancram: I have made my stance clear. I identified something that is peculiar to housing associations and peculiar to Scotland. The concession that has been made is useful and valuable.
The right hon. Member for Clydesdale,(Dame J. Hart) referred to New Lanark. She will recall that I said that I did not want to deal with any individual association. To the best of our knowledge, New Lanark will benefit from the exemption, but uncertainty remains, for the reason that I gave earlier. Information on the tax status of housing associations is simply not available to the Government. Exemption depends on that to a large extent. I shall look into the right hon. Lady's other question.

Dame Judith Hart: I appreciate that the Minister did not want to refer to any specific housing association. I am not asking for an undertaking about New Lanark's tax


status, but if the 1965 Act does not consolidate the 1893 Act, will the Minister undertake to remedy that in another place?

Mr. Ancram: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, I did not consider the issue in respect of individual associations. I have come to what I believe is a balanced view and I stand by the criteria that I have presented to the House.

Dame Judith Hart: I am sorry to press the Minister, but it would be no use if when he examines individual housing associations and wants to take account of the arguments concerning New Lanark, he found that he had precluded himself from covering New Lanark because the Bill was ill drafted. I am merely asking him to ensure that that does not happen.

Mr. Ancram: I appreciate the right hon. Lady's concern, but I have said what I have to say about the amendment. I shall look into the matter that she raised, and if I find anything that contradicts what I have led her to believe, I shall write to her.
The amendments are a sound basis because they meet the major problems which were raised in Committee and by the housing associations. I hope that the right hon. Member for Govan will feel on consideration, and in the light of the amendments which the Government have tabled, that his new clause is in one respect too narrow and in another too broad and that he can withdraw it. If he cannot, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to reject it.

Mr. Milian: I do not feel disposed to withdraw my new clause. I shall vote for the Government's amendments even though they are defective.
We seem to have got into a tangle on charities, first because the Government decided for purely dogmatic reasons to set aside the voluntary code for sales which they have negotiated with housing associations in an attempt to steamroller them into sales in which they do not which to engage. Secondly, we would not have got into this tangle, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir R. Johnson) said, if the Government had decided to make the same provisions in Scotland as apply in England and Wales. We have got ourselves into unnecessary tangles largely because of the way the Government have behaved and against the background of not having charities legislation in Scotland similar to that which applies in England and Wales.
That having been said, we have had no convincing argument from the Minister as to why there should be any restriction from 3 October 1980 or any other date. I very much hope that the other place will take this completely unnecessary and unfair restriction out of the Bill.
With regard to the drafting point, from my understanding of paragraph (g) and after what the Minister says it is intended to mean, I hope that he will look again at the drafting. Indeed, the drafting of the whole of section 1(11) of the Tenants' Rights, etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, after the amendments made to it and further amendments which will be made, is not clear. The landlords so mentioned are not just the landlords mentioned in paragraph (d), which is housing associations. If the Minister will examine section 1(11) of the 1980 Act, he will note that it mentions all sorts of other landlords—

the local authorities, the new towns, the housing cooperatives and the Scottish Special Housing Association —so the drafting is not adequate. Paragraph (g) could be very restrictive in applying only to charity-based housing associations or, taking the widest interpretation, it could include local authorities in any case because they are already mentioned in section 1(11) of the 1980 Act. If the Government want to include all housing associations, I hope that the Minister will make sure that that is what is done.
On the substantive point, the Minister gave no argument for excluding local authorities and, for that matter, new towns and the SSHA from the concession contained in paragraph (g). I acknowledged in moving the new clause that I had tabled it before the Government amendments were tabled. It was specifically directed to the needs of the mentally handicapped, but the principle would apply to ex-prisoners, youngsters who have come out of care of local authorities and any other category which may subsequently be included in the Bill by the order-making powers provided for in amendment No. 16. There is no reason in principle why the concessions made for housing associations should not also apply to all these other bodies.
Therefore, I wish to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 235.

Division No. 90]
[6.54 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dalyell, Tam


Alton, David
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Deakins, Eric


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Donald


Atkinson, N, (Tottenham)
Dobson, Frank


Barnett, Guy
Dormand, Jack


Barron, Kevin
Douglas, Dick


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bell, Stuart
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Eadie, Alex


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Blair, Anthony
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Flannery, Martin


Bruce, Malcolm
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Foulkes, George


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Freud, Clement


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Godman, Dr Norman


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Golding, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gourlay, Harry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Clarke, Thomas
Hardy, Peter


Clay, Robert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clelland, David Gordon
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Haynes, Frank


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Howells, Geraint


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Douglas


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)






John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom


Johnston, Sir Russell
Pike, Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Charles
Redmond, Martin


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Kirkwood, Archy
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lambie, David
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lamond, James
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, George


Leighton, Ronald
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rogers, Allan


Livsey, Richard
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rowlands, Ted


Loyden, Edward
Sheerman, Barry


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McGuire, Michael
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McKelvey, William
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


McTaggart, Robert
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stott, Roger


Martin, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Maxton, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Meacher, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Tinn, James


Michie, William
Wainwright, R.


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Welsh, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, James


Nellist, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon A.


O'Brien, William
Wilson, Gordon


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Park, George



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. James Hamilton and


Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Ancram, Michael
Dunn, Robert


Batiste, Spencer
Dykes, Hugh


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Evennett, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fallon, Michael


Blackburn, John
Favell, Anthony


Body, Sir Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Franks, Cecil


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bruinvels, Peter
Gale, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Galley, Roy


Buck, Sir Antony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carttiss, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair


Cash, William
Gow, Ian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Gregory, Conal


Colvin, Michael
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Cope, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cormack, Patrick
Grist, Ian


Corrie, John
Grylls, Michael


Couchman, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Dicks, Terry
Hampson, Dr Keith





Hanley, Jeremy
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Neubert, Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Tony


Harvey, Robert
Normanton, Tom


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, J.
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Heddle, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hickmet, Richard
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hirst, Michael
Porter, Barry


Holt, Richard
Portillo, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Powley, John


Howard, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Price, Sir David


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Raffan, Keith


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Renton, Tim


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rost, Peter


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Ryder, Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Knowles, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knox, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lament, Norman
shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Nicholas
Squire, Robin


McCrindle, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maclean, David John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Major, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malins, Humfrey
Terlezki, Stefan


Malone, Gerald
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Maples, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Marlow, Antony
Thornton, Malcolm


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Mather, Carol
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maude, Hon Francis
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waddington, David


Mellor, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Merchant, Piers
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waller, Gary


Monro, Sir Hector
Ward, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Warren, Kenneth


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Watson, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Watts, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Mudd, David
Wheeler, John


Neale, Gerrard
Whitfield, John


Needham, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry






Winterton, Mrs Ann
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Woodcock, Michael
Mr. Tony Durant and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Young, Sir George (Acton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise this point of order, but a delegation of trade union members and workers from Leyland car plants throughout Britain has been to the House today and for the second time this week a green card which was filled in in the Lobby has taken an hour and 10 minutes to reach me while I have been in Committee. As a result, my constituents have not been able to see me and have returned to my constituency.
This is the second time this week that this has happened. I am also informed by hon. Friends that the same has happened to them on previous occasions. I wish to make it clear that I am in no way criticising any attendant but I have been informed by an attendant that a shortage of manpower is now leading to a delay in green cards being communicated to hon. Members.
Will you look into this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a matter of urgency because it is an embarrassment to Members and it makes it difficult for us to fulfil our public functions? Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I shall see to it that the matter is looked into right away.

New Clause 6

RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF SPECIAL NEED HOUSES

'Regional authorities, or where appropriate joint boards, may appeal to the Secretary of State against the sale of a particular house on the grounds that it has to be retained in order to allow them to effectively fulfil their statutory functions.'.—[Sir Russell Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Russell Johnston: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 25, in page 28, line 20, Schedule 1, leave out sub-paragraph 9.

Sir Russell Johnston: This is a limited but important proposal. Hon. Members, particularly those who served on the Committee, will recall that, from the moment of the publication of the Bill, education authorities with areas of sparse population and joint fire authorities with similar difficulties have expressed great concern that the legislation could deprive them of the limited housing stock that they retain for the performance of their statutory functions.
In Committee on 16 January amendments were moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) who sought to make provision for regions and joint boards similar to that which was made for the island councils in 1984. The Minister rejected them but gave only three arguments for doing so. First, he said:
I cannot accept … that the problems of finding alternative accommodation which can occur in the remote islands arise to the same degree on the mainland, even in the rural areas. Moreover, the present amendments go well beyond the rural areas. They would give regional councils a wide power to refuse applications to buy any education authority house.

The fact was that the Minister's mind was on Strathclyde which he felt, rightly or wrongly, had not implemented the voluntary code.
At this stage is is worth noting, even in retrospect, the four criteria of which, according to section 3B of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, island councils have to take note. They are, first, that it is an education authority house required for the performance of that function; secondly, that it is required immediately, or, thirdly, that it will be required within a perceptible time; fourthly, and most important or most confining of all, that there is no way in which the authorities can obtain a similar house.
It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us whether, as a consequence of that change, there have been any Government refusals of the islands' requests of this nature. My new clause seeks to apply the fourth criterion in such a way that the onus clearly rests on the regional authority or joint board to demonstrate a requirement. Therefore, I should think that the clause would be acceptable to the Government because they retain the final say.
The second ministerial argument about such a system being unnecessary is that an authority could make occupancy of a house a condition of employment. In Committee the Minister said:
Schedule 1 of the 1980 Act provides that where a teacher, or any other employee, is required to occupy a particular house as a condition of his employment, he shall not have security of tenure or the right to buy.
That was nice and simple, but unfortunately the hon. Member for Cathcart rebutted this simply and comprehensively when he said:
I do not believe that they could get it"—
that is, agreement of this type—
included in a teacher's contract of employment. I doubt that many individual teachers would accept that as a contract nor would the negotiating body, when it meets, agree to such a change in teachers' contracts on a general basis.
An amusing point— perhaps it says something of the nature of these debates—is that the Minister's statement came after the hon. Gentleman's rebuttal. The Minister never tried to deal with what the hon. Member said. The best he could say, rather sadly, was, "I am disappointed."
It is not possible for regional authorities to get such an agreement from teachers, and in the case of fire officers the position is worse still. In January 1985 the joint negotiating body specifically forbade a firemaster to require that an officer occupy a particular house. I and the hon. Member for Cathcart do not believe that, in the case of teachers, the negotiating body would accede to such a proposal and, in the case of firemasters, they had discussions and rejected it. Thus, in making this argument, the Minister is suggesting that regional authorities can protect their statutory interests by securing safeguards which it is beyond their ability to obtain. That applies to education and fire authorities alike.
The third ministerial argument is the curtilage argument. In Committee the Minister said:
we are introducing a new provision to meet the special position of regional councils by introducing a new category which provides that a tenant shall not have security or right to buy if his house comes within the curtilage of another building. This recognises, for example, the situation where a teacher's house might form part of or be attached to a school building, or a janitor's house coming within the school grounds. Both these instances were mentioned by the hon. Member for Cathcart and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber may


recognise them in areas such as his constituency."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 16 January 1986; c. 193–94.]
I recognise that there are many such examples in rural areas where housing is in short supply. However, in many rural areas neither education authority houses nor fire houses are within the curtilage of the school or the fire station.
7.15 pm
There are many examples which are different. I think, for example, of education in Caithness and Sutherland and, in the case of fire, there are the examples of Kirkwall, Invergordon and Fort William.
I hold the view that the amendments accepted by the Government in 1984 in respect of the island councils and the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Cathcart for regions and joint boards would have been the sensible way ahead. Indeed, one could argue that, since the island authorities are also housing authorities, they could meet education and fire requirements more easily from general needs than regional authorities which are not housing authorities.
I accept that the Government will not yield on this point. However, my new clause — it could be reintroduced in appropriate form in another place —would give authorities such as Grampian, Highlands and the Borders which have operated, as the Minister would agree, the voluntary code fairly an opportunity to make their case genuinely to the Government. The onus would be on the authorities to do so and the Government in the end would decide. Equally, if the Minister's contention is that Strathclyde was resisting a proper application of the voluntary code, the new clause would put that authority in the same position of having to make a case as the other local authorities would have to do.
This is a reasonable proposal on a matter which has caused, and which continues to cause, great concern among the rural education and fire authorities. I hope that the Minister will respond positively. If he is not able to give an absolute nay or yea tonight, I shall be perfectly happy if he says that the issue will be studied in another place. I hope that, in listening to the debate, he will recognise that the argument I have advanced is sound and sensible and is supported by reasonable parties.

Mr. Kennedy: I shall speak briefly in support of the new clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has moved. I underline the sentiment that he expressed at the end of his speech, that even if this formulation of the clause is not acceptable to the Government, they should look seriously at the issue and the principles which it raises, and the difficulties which this legislation, if not altered from its present form, will cause in areas such as the Highland region. Perhaps the Government could use the opportunity in another place to deal with some of the difficulties which are expected to arise.
We have all received representations, especially from teachers in the Highland region. Teachers want the right to buy their own homes—that is understandable—and any sensible person would support that. The Minister acknowledged the difficulty in a letter to me dated 31 January 1986. He said—arguing, first, for the general policy of the right to buy, which he knows I support:
I accept however that there may need to be restrictions on the sale of houses in rural areas.
The Minister is correct in that.

The new clause is not about every designated local authority house; it is about those occasions in remote rural communities, particularly on the west coast, but also elsewhere in the highlands, where the loss of the teacher's house would militate against the replacement of a teacher where necessary. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that that is a genuine concern in smaller communities. It is something about which we have received many representations.
The chairman of Gairloch high school council in my constituency wrote to me a month ago expressing great concern on behalf of the council at the proposal. He made the following telling points:
1. Housing both private and public are very scarce and in great demand.
2. The few houses that become available for sale are therefore expensive and often well beyond the means of many young teachers.
The Scottish Office has never sought to deny, and we would never deny, that teachers are not well paid, and there is no doubt that they cannot afford large mortgages, particularly where housing is scarce, prices are high and accordingly the market is inflated.
Another difficulty faced in the highlands all too often, as the chairman of the Gairloch high school council points out, is that land is not as available as we would like it to be. There are many complicated reasons for that, but I shall not go into them now. That backdrop shows the legitimate problem. The chairman goes on to make the case, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, that in many cases in rural communities the school house is an integral part of the school building. The Government appear to be aware of this problem, as there have been specific, and welcome, references to it.
This is not a widespread issue. It does not have to be applied as an absolute principle that the teachers who happen to live in the Highland region, for example, should not have the right to buy their own home. That is not what we are asking. The way in which my hon. Friend both phrased the new clause and argued for it shows how sensible it would be if the local authority—in this case the Highland regional council—when it felt that the proper exercise of its statutory function was being called into doubt by the provisions of the legislation, had the right to make a direct appeal to the Scottish Office. The counterarguments could then be heard, and the Scottish Office and the Government would not be surrendering the final right of decision, because explicit in the new clause is an acceptance that they would have to make that judgment.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that island authorities have exactly that right on teachers' houses. The Government have introduced an amendment to the 1980 Act which established that right, because they saw the anomalies that they were creating. In Committee I moved an amendment that would have allowed the system to operate in all regional authorities, and I do not understand even now why the Minister would not accept it.

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman puts his point fairly and with great force. It is a common-sense solution to a problem which we can all see coming, and witch those in the area identified as soon as the Bill was published. Therefore, I hope that, if not tonight, in the other place, the Government will take steps to act positively to clear up what will soon be a genuine problem.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said, there are also the problems of the Highlands and Islands fire board. I shall not repeat all of his points, with which I concur. The fire board owns five houses, in Kirkwall, Lerwick, Stornoway and Fort William and, my particular concern, in Invergordon.
A letter from the clerk to the board said:
If the Board are required to sell these houses they would no longer be available for incoming Officers in the event that new appointments were necessary. It is anticipated that it would be extremely difficult to purchase suitable replacement housing, particularly in the Islands areas and in Fort William. Further, in the absence of available accommodation it would be difficult to attract applicants for the positions in question. The threat posed by the terms of the Bill as presently drafted to the operational needs of the Brigade is therefore regarded as a serious one which, I would suggest, merits consideration of possible amendment of the relevant terms of the Bill.
That puts the position fairly and sensibly, and underlines the purpose of the new clause.
We support the right of teachers, and all those in other categories, to own their homes. However, as the Minister would no doubt agree, any right in society has always to be tempered by a sense of responsibility to the wider public interest. There may be occasions when, in my two examples of teachers and fire brigade officers, the local authorities involved should have the right of appeal to the Scottish Office, so that ultimately the Secretary of state and his Ministers will decide. Our approach is wholly sensible, and I hope that the Minister can respond in the constructive fashion in which the new clause has been moved.

Mr. Ancram: The new clause provides that regional councils may appeal to the Secretary of State, presumably for permission to refuse to sell a particular house, where they feel that the house has to be retained so that they can effectively fulfil their statutory functions. The amendment appears to be defective, although I shall not labour that point. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said, we discussed this matter in Committee. Therefore I am sure that the hon. Member will not be surprised to hear me say that I find the amendment misguided and unnecessary.
The Government fully accept that, in extending security of tenure and the right to buy to tenants of houses owned by regional councils, it is necessary to ensure that regional councils are able to retain those houses that they genuinely need to fulfil their statutory functions. However, it is better for the tenants and for the regional council landlords to provide for such houses to be excluded on the face of the legislation. This means that the tenants and their landlords will know clearly where they stand. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the importance of that.
I say this in the belief that is possible to specify in the legislation those categories of houses that regional councils and other public authorities need to retain such properties. These are listed in schedule 1 to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. They include houses let to an employee of the landlord as a condition of his contract of employment and houses let temporarily pending development — for example, a region might need to acquire land to build a road.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber used the example of the teacher, already used by the hon.
Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in Committee. I am sorry if I did not respond then, but I had many points to which I had to respond. However, schedule 1(2)(2) to the 1980 Act says that a contract of employment means a contract "whether express or implied". Therefore, the provision does not have to be written into the employee's contract for a house so to be exempt. The problem raised by the hon. Member for Cathcart is therefore resolved.

Sir Russell Johnston: That is a new argument. Is the Minister saying that, even if a teacher does not consent to stay in a particular house as part of his contract of employment, such an undertaking may be imposed on him by the regional authority?

Mr. Ancram: That depends whether it is implicit in the work that the teacher does. The advice that I have is that the condition of residence in the house would not have to be written into an employee's contract for a house to be exempt under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.

Mr. Maxton: What would happen when a teacher from one school takes a school house attached to another school because at that point the teacher from the other school —say, a single-teacher school in a rural area—has no wish to have that house but the authority wishes to keep the house available to employ another teacher when the present teacher retires? I know that that is complicated but I know that such situations apply in rural areas.

Mr. Ancram: I am not quite sure that I followed all the parts of the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis and I would not therefore wish to give a categorical answer. However, I think that what I have said about the implicit nature which is allowed for under the 1980 Act—the problem which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber raised—would not arise.
As a consequence of extending security of tenure and the right to buy to tenants in dwellings owned by regional councils, we felt that it was necessary to add two further categories to the list of excluded houses in schedule 1. These appear in the new paragraphs added to that schedule by paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the Bill.
The lists include houses let to serving members of a police or fire authority. That is why I was a little surprised by the comments made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). I have not previously received representations about the difficulties that the hon. Gentlemen alleged over the position of rural fire service houses. We are proposing under the provision to exclude service houses. I stress that I have not received representations that this provision was deficient but I shall look into the point and write to the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I must tell the Minister that I have received representations from the Highlands and Islands fire brigade. The clerk of the brigade said, in terms, that the Bill does not contain adequate protection for the fire board and it does not appear that there are any grounds on which the board may resist the demands by an officer to purchase his house in locations where it is not possible to make available suitable


replacement housing when the need arises. Is the Minister saying that that is wrong and that the schedule specifically deals with the problem?

Mr. Ancram: I understand from the way that the Bill has been drafted that houses let to serving members of the police or a fire authority would be exempt from the right to buy. Again, these representations have been made to hon. Members and unfortunately as far as I am aware, such representations have not been made to me. I will look into the matter and if the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland so wishes, I will add him to my correspondence list.
The provisions do all that is necessary to exclude from the right to buy those houses that regional authorities need to retain to fulfil their statutory functions. I know that the hon. Member for Cathcart, has not discussed amendment No. 25. The hon. Gentleman's amendment removes a provision which is a good one and one which, as far as I know, has been welcomed by COSLA. That is a useful provision and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take me by surprise by pressing his amendment.

Sir Russell Johnston: Before we approach the question whether we vote, I should like to say a few words. The Minister appears to be saying that the new clause is unnecessary. However, it is a fact that education authorities— not just in the Highlands but throughout Scotland—are mindful that the new clause is necessary. I admit that I have not had representations from any fire authority other than the Highlands and Islands authority but, as my hon. Friends have said, the board is sure that the provision that the Minister has set out is not correct. I hope that the Minister will make an undertaking to look into the matter and I also hope that the Minister will examine the education aspect.

Mr. Ancram: I have dealt with the education matter. I believe that the case put forward by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. was not sustained in the light of the provisions in the Bill, and not only in this Bill hut in previous legislation. I therefore rejected the hon. Gentleman's argument.
In connection with the fire houses, I said that while I thought that the Bill as it stood provided the protection for which the hon. Gentleman's constituents were looking, I had not received the representations that he had received. I said that I would examine those representations and would write to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends once I had had a chance to do that. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will withdraw the new clause.

Sir Russell Johnston: I should like to make one last point in respect of the education authorities. It is passing strange—no stronger than that—that the argument has been produced late in the day that somehow or other, even if teachers are not likely to agree to occupancy of a particular house being a condition of employment, in some way that is not clearly defined if that is implied by the regional authority, it becomes the case. That is a very unsatisfactory argument which has not appeared before, even when the Minister has been subjected to representations from local authorities. That has been discussed both on Second Reading and in Committee. That is very odd indeed.
However, as the Minister is willing to examine the matters again — I take it from that that there is an

implication that should he find anything wrong he will introduce amending legislation in another place—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

AMENDMENT OF HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) ACT 1977

'In the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, in section 1(2), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
(d) it does not provide the ordinary facilities of a residence and it is inappropriate for his needs, or it is unreasonable for him to continue to live in it".
In section 4 there shall be inserted after subsection (6):—
(7) Where a local authority has a duty under subsections (4) and (5) above tO either secure that accommodation does not cease to be available or to secure that accommodation becomes available for the applicant 'accommodation' shall be defined as a separate dwelling house that shall confonn to section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and section 14 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974".'.—[ltir. Dewar.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.
This is an extremely important clause, and I regret that considerations of time means that we cannot have .as full a debate on it as we might have liked. I am anxious that we should have the opportunity to sketch in the anxieties that are felt about certain judicial happenings in recent times in connection with the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. We may have the opportunity of hearing the Minister give some reassurances about, or at least careful Government consideration of, the consequences of what has happened.
I am referring to the judgment of Lord Brightman in the interesting and recent case of Puhlhofer v. the London Borough of Hillingdon. That judgment was delivered on 6 February 1986 and is therefore hot off the judicial press. It may sound a long way from Scotland and the Housing (Scotland) Bill, but it is a House of Lords judgment and it interprets the term "accommodation" as used in the 1977 Act. It therefore has distinct and important consequences for local authorities in Scotland, and, more important, for homeless people or those who may become homeless in Scotland.
The Puhlhofer case can be described, in view of the facts, in a short compass. The couple had a complicated history, but the material fact is that when the courts started to consider their predicament they were asking for assistance under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. At the time they were living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. A husband, a wife and two young children were living in one room in a bed-and-breakfast establishment. That room contained a double and a single bed, a baby's cradle, a dressing table, a pram, and a sterilisation unit. All that had certain repercussions on their limited income from social security benefits.
When the family applied for homeless persons status, the London borough of Hillingdon told them that it had accommodation available for occupation, but that it did not need to offer help under the 1977 Act, because the family had accommodation. That is an unsatisfactory and reactionary view, considering the difficult circumstances in which the family were placed. Therefore, it was decided


to take the matter to court to test the judgment by judicial review. Lord Brightman handed down his judgment on that case.
The case raised two questions. The first related to when someone is homeless, — that is, when a person has accommodation of a sufficient standard to allow a local authority to say that he is not homeless. The second question related to what accommodation was in terms of what is provided under the 1977 Act. If one becomes homeless, what must the local authority offer? What amounts to accommodation to satisfy the terms of the 1977 statute?
I do not want to criticise unnecessarily, but I am disappointed at Lord Brightman's approach. He stated that the Homeless Persons Act
is not an Act which imposes any duty upon a local authority to house the homeless … It is an Act to assist persons who are homeless, not an Act to provide them with homes.
That may sound like a semantic argument, but it gave rise to some unfortunate consequences in his Lordship's mind. He continued:
In this situation, Parliament plainly, and wisely, placed no qualifying adjective before the word 'accommodation' in section 1 or section 4 of the Act, and none is to be implied. The word 'appropriate' or 'reasonable' is not to be imported. Nor is accommodation not accommodation because it might in certain circumstances be unfit for habitation for the purposes of part II of the Housing Act 1957.
It is extraordinary that the judge should take the view that because the words "appropriate" or "reasonable" were not specifically included in the Act, accommodation does not cease to be accommodation merely because is it unfit for human habitation. One could argue that one could discharge one's duty under the 1977 Act by putting people in accommodation which is genuinely and literally, in terms of the statutory requirements, unfit for human habitation. That is too broad to leave unchallenged, and too dangerous to remain as the considered judgment of the courts' interpretation of the 1977 Act.
Lord Brightman continued:
There are no rules. Clearly some places in which a person might choose or be constrained to live could not properly be regarded as accommodation … it would be a misuse of language to describe Diogenes as having occupied accommodation within the meaning of the Act.
He then said that anything short of living in a barrel would do, that it was a matter entirely for local authorities, and that no other standards should be imposed or expected.
The judgment could have alarming consequences, and is unsatisfactory. Will the Minister give the Government's view on that line of reasoning? Do Ministers think that it is satisfactory? Where does the judgment lead? In view of the judgment, what is the standing of the Scottish code of guidance under the Homeless Persons Act 1977? The House will remember that the code asks local authorities
to bear in mind the relevant provisions of general housing and public health legislation",
and stresses that
the basic need of families is for self contained accommodation.
In those two examples the code appears to interpret the word "accommodation" and to make some sensible suggestions about a local authority's duty under the Act. Lord Brightman's reasoning clearly undermines the code of guidance and may leave local authorities in doubt about where their duty lies. It is important that the Minister makes it clear where the Government stand on that.
7.45 pm
The new clause is comparatively simple and is tabled specifically to highlight that point. It is no secret that Shelter prepared the brief and drew the matter to our attention. I am grateful to Shelter for doing so, because without that it might have been a long time before we came across Lord Brightman's thoughts on the subject. We may have done so only when they started to have unpleasant, unwanted consequences north of the border.
The Minister will be aware that the new clause has all-party support. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), asked me specifically to say that he had put his name to the clause. He would have liked to attend the debate, but unfortunately, he had to go to his constituency. He wanted to record his support for the anxiety that I have mentioned.
As the Minister, who is a member of the Faculty of Advocates, knows better than I do, a House of Lords judgment in a civil area has relevance in Scotland. Indeed, it is highly persuasive. I noticed, sadly, that the judgment was endorsed by Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Mackay of Clashfern who are in the Scottish legal world. The judgment will undoubtedly lay down a standard which will be difficult for the Court of Session to ignore in a judicial review on an application concerning the 1977 Act. That is why I am so anxious to debate the matter.
One of the genuinely alarming features of the judgment is Lord Brightman's remarks about judicial reviews. He said:
My Lords, I am troubled at the prolific use of judicial review … And I express the hope that there will be a lessening in the number of challenges which are mounted against local authorities who are endeavouring, in extremely difficult circumstances, to perform their duties under the Homeless Persons Act.
No one wants frivolous applications to the courts, but we have come down a long and difficult road, most of which has been signposted by Brown v. Hamilton district council —that interminable Jarndyce v. Jarndyce performance—when we tried to establish the importance and availability of judicial review. The Minister will join me in paying tribute to the efforts that were made, particularly by Lord Drumpark, to evolve a new procedure which allows judicial review to be less of a legal marathon and obstacle race.
I hear reasonably encouraging reports of the new procedure in Scotland, so I hope that in passing the Minister will distance himself from Lord Brightman's expressions on the subject. It is important that on such a basic matter as this people should be free to go to the courts if they feel that the administrative discretion allowed to local authorities under the Act has been abused.
I hope that I have said enough to set out the limits of the argument. Shelter's brief talks of
serious inroads into the duties of local authorities",
and points out that having taken legal advice it believes
that the Homeless Persons Act will cease to have any practical use for homeless people.
That may be overstated. I hope that most local authorities will continue to take a responsible view, to take the common-sense meaning of the word "homeless", and to offer decent accommodation to those in that position. I hope that the loophole opened up by Lord Brightman will be ignored in the vast majority of cases. I hope that the Minister will at least show that he agrees with the general trend of my attack and that if the Government cannot accept the new clause — I accept that it will require consultation — consultation will be put in hand and


positive efforts will be made to find a solution which will ensure that Brightmanship does not break out in Scottish housing.

Sir Russell Johnston: I support what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has said. Nevertheless, I shall take the opportunity to give one more quotation from the past which the hon. Gentleman did not give but which I think is apposite. He referred to the case of the Hamilton district council v. Matthew Brown, in which Lord Justice Clerk Wheatley stated:
I reject the argument that as long as accommodation was available it did not matter what the nature of the accommodation was. In my view it must be reasonable accommodation in all the circumstances. A pig-sty could be accommodation but not reasonable accommodation.
That was qualified afterwards by Lord Fraser when he said that a distinction might be made between temporary and long-term accommodation. However, in either case, it was fundamental in determining the Scottish code of conduct.
I should particularly like to know to what extent the Brightman decision has any effect on the position in Scotland. As a signatory to the new clause, I accept that the wording may not be perfect, but I think that both sides of the House would welcome an intimation from the Minister that he will take the problems into account and, if so required—I do not know whether it will be—will introduce legislation to prevent Brightmanism from becoming the law of the land.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: As we have been discussing some legal judgments, perhaps the best thing that I can do is to say that I concur with the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). However, I will make a short observation of my own to add to the argument that he has lucidly put forward.
One of the difficulties of using a common brief is that the quotations tend to be used up during the early stages of a debate and afterwards there is repetition, but I would like to mention Women's Aid. I agree with the hon. Member for Garscadden that any responsible or sensible local authority would use its discretion and would follow the code of practice and rehouse those who were homeless. I should be surprised if many local authorities fell out with that aim. We have to return to the original case involving Matthew Brown, in which a local authority did not respond and a judicial review was necessary. Equally, in the case of the judgment we have just heard, a local authority again was not prepared to rehouse someone in suitable accommodation and, accordingly, a request was made for a judicial review.
Along with other hon. Members, I have received a letter from Scottish Women's Aid. It wants me to point out that it is worried about the situation. In many cases women who leave their husbands, perhaps after having been battered, go into temporary accommodation. If one follows the judgment in the Puhlhofer case, the temporary accommodation which they moved into could prevent them from gaining adequate accommodation in terms of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. It was found necessary to pass the Act in 1977, so obviously there must have been a need for it.
I also received some information from Shelter about the position in Dundee. It gave me two quotations, one about a women's refuge in Dundee where there were

Two flats within one building. One flat had two bedrooms, each of which can house a mother and her children. The occupants share two toilets and one bathroom. They all share one small cooker in the kitchen.
That accommodation might debar someone from obtaining suitable accommodation.
The second quotation was about a night shelter in West Bell street, in Dundee. That accommodation consisted of
a single dormitory for up to 26 people. They share one bath and one shower. There are two toilets. No cooking facilities.
However, under the judgment in the Puhlhofer case, that, too, might debar those who are in that accommodation from their rights under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. I do not think that that is reasonable.
We have good grounds to be critical of the House of Lords because, in the original case of Hamilton district council v. Matthew Brown which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) quoted, the criteria which were adopted by the Lord Justice Clerk were very sound. He looked at the nature of the accommodation and I think that that is the most reasonable way of doing it. That statement was qualified subsequently, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said, in the House of Lords, but the definition adopted by the Law Lords was better than that enunciated in the Puhlhofer case.
I understand that in Scotland, from the beginning of April, the legislation bifurcates between Scotland and England and Wales. If that is so, we can take advantage of this debate to put the law back to where everyone thought it was in 1977 and as was subsequently defined in the case of Hamilton district council v. Matthew Brown, which was the first case to interpret in 1981 the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
Those of us who have had the matter drawn to our attention are grateful to be able to bring it to the House at this stage in the Bill. I always appreciate the difficulties that Ministers may have in finding a legislative vehicle which will allow them to repair legislation which may have been savaged or mauled in the courts. In this case, we have a highly suitable Bill and, given the decision In the House of Lords, it would be very influential, if not binding, on the Scottish courts, especially in view of the concurrence of the two Scottish Law Lords.
I hope that the Government, through the Minister today, will correct the situation. I would not be happy if he were to say that, because the voluntary code is still in existence, it will adequately deal with the problem. That code of practice followed upon a statutory obligation which appeared in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Ace. If the Act has holes knocked in it, statutory obligations become worthless. If that happened, the code would be neutered, and I do not think that anyone, including the Minister, would like to see that happen.

Mr. Ancram: I have listened carefully to the views expressed in this debate. Hon. Gentlemen may be assured that their concerns have been noted and I intend to consider them. Hon. Gentlemen will appreciate that it is not for me to comment on the decision of the Law Lords, although we will give careful thought to the implications of the judgment.
The decision illustrates some of the general principles underlying the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. When a person presents himself as homeless under the Act, the local authority is required to look into the circumstances of his case, but the authority then has the


discretion, having regard to the code of guidance issued by the Secretary of State, to reach its own judgment on whether the person is homeless and whether he falls into one of the priority need categories. Therefore, the purpose of the Act is to regulate the function of the local authority with respect to persons who are homeless or who are threatened with homelessness.
In allocating houses, local authorities have to deal with difficult decisions as to needs and priorities and to balance competing claims for the resources available. I have tremendous sympathy, as I think we all do, with a family living in overcrowded conditions. Their needs may require to be assessed alongside other applicants on the authority's waiting list who may be in equally difficult positions. An example is an elderly couple whose house suffers from dampness and condensation who may not be termed as homeless, but who may equally have a good reason for seeking a transfer. It is fair to say that the Act is primarily intended as a safety net for people who do not have a roof over their heads. It is important that it should not become a means at the other end of the scale by which other people, however deserving, can bypass the authority's normal rules for allocating houses according to its Members assessment of need.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has chosen an interesting example. Does he have any evidence that such an abuse of the housing rules has taken place? My experience in Dundee is that, when someone is homeless, a house is made available, but it is rarely in one of the higher amenity districts.

8 pm

Mr. Ancram: I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not misunderstand me. I was saying that the present position, which, to a large extent, gives local authorities discretion, would effectively allow local authorities to make proper judgments. This raises a marker about the potential dangers of looking for a statutory definition.
Having set out the general background, the decision of the Law Lords—that "accommodation" in section 1(1) of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 does not mean "appropriate" or "reasonable", as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, but merely accommodation that can properly be described as such within the ordinary meaning of the English language—has implications. I should like to consider those implications further. I should like time to consider the report of the decision more carefully than any of us have been able to do so far. This is a matter on which I think it would be appropriate that I should consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The decision concerned an English case and an Act which has application in Great Britain. I am advised, as the hon. Member for Garscadden suggested, that it would almost certainly be followed in Scotland. Clearly, there are implications for the whole of Britain which need to be looked at together. I do not believe that there is a strong case for importing a definition of "accommodation" into the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act for Scotland which may differ from that for England and Wales. I think that, in this respect, it makes sense to keep in step.

Mr. Dewar: I understand that the code of guidance is issued under the Act. Lord Brightman could not consider

the code of guidance, for understandable reasons. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that Scottish code of guidance is still binding on local authorities and that they are expected to observe its conditions, as before?

Mr. Ancram: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to come to that point. I can confirm that the code of guidance is referred to in the Act, although not necessarily in specific terms. Section 12 of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act provides:
In relation to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness a relevant authority shall have regard in the exercise of their functions to such guidance as may from time to time be given by the Secretary of State.
That is the statutory basis.
I think that the Opposition will accept that the new clause could give rise to problems of its own. They are seeking by it to provide that, where an authority has a duty to secure accommodation, it shall take the form of a separate dwelling house which conforms to the statutory provisions relating to overcrowding and the tolerable standard. I sympathise with the intention, but I believe that we must be careful not to impose unrealistic duties on local authorities. Where the Act places an obligation on an authority to ensure that accommodation is available, it is for the authority to decide how best that obligation can be met.
Chapter 4 of the code gives some guidance to local authorities. In particular, it recognises that there may be cases where, as a last resort, authorities need to arrange accommodation in lodgings, guest houses or hotels. It is made clear, however, that this is to be a last resort and that such accommodation should be for as short a period as possible. I do not think that we can entirely rule out such accommodation as a temporary solution, which would appear to be the present effect of the new clause.
The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to the implications of the decision on section 4 in so far as it placed a duty on local authorities to secure accommodation for certain homelesss persons. At present, the code of guidance states explicitly in paragraph 4(15) that bed and breakfast accommodation is not to be regarded as appropriate permanent accommodation. Even as temporary accommodation, it is to be used as a last resort or for as short a time as possible.
What the code of guidance has to say about accommodation in respect of local authority duties under section 4 may still remain relevant. I do not necessarily accept Shelter's contention that it is overturned by the decision of the House of Lords. That is a matter of some doubt and one of the matters on which I should like to take legal advice and make an assessment. The position is complicated. This and other aspects must be given further consideration.
I assure hon. Members that I intend to give full and careful consideration to the implications of the decision. I shall want to consult and to hear the views of interested organisations. As part of that process, yesterday I met representatives of Shelter (Scotland) who set out their anxieties to me. I hope that, in the light of my assurance that I intend to give this matter consideration and to consult, the hon. Member for Garscadden will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Dewar: I think that the Under-Secretary of State has persuaded me that we should not push the new clause.
It would be unreasonable to do so. This matter must be carefully considered and we must ensure that we obtain the right answer.
I take at face value—I am sure that I am entitled to do so—the hon. Gentleman's assurance that consultation will be put in hand urgently, that he will consult interested bodies and take his own legal soundings on the impact of the judgment on Scotland. Clearly, that will take some time and it will not be possible to catch up with this question if action is needed during the passage of this legislation. If the advice is that the code of guidance has been undermined or set aside by the House of Lords' judgment, I hope that the hon. Gentlman will not hesitate to take steps to reinstate it or to ensure that there is a reasonable framework within which local authorities can exercise their duties. If that requires some form of legislation, I am sure that all the Opposition parties would be anxious to accommodate it, assuming that there was general agreement on the necessary steps.

Mr. Maclennan: I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the Under-Secretary of State has been very forthcoming, but he has not said what was his understanding of the law before the case. It would have been helpful to know whether the Government's understanding was in line with Lord Brightman's view. It certainly was not my view, and I doubt that it was Parliament's when the legislation was put on the statute book. In light of the fact that the Under-Secretary of State is obviously seized of the urgency of meeting the inquiries that will undoubtedly come from local authorities as to where their duties lie, I think that it would be wrong to press him further.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2

INCREASED DISCOUNT WHERE DWELLING-HOUSE PURCHASED IS A FLAT

Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 2, line 17, at end insert
'provided that where the flat is part of a deck access block, or of a free-standing tower block having at least ten consecutive floors of tenanted accommodation the discount shall be 50 per cent.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 28, in page 2, line 20, after 'cent', insert
'provided that where the flat is part of a deck access block, or of a free-standing tower block having at least ten consecutive floors of tenanted accommodation the discount shall be 80 per cent.'.

Mr. Marlow: I apologise as a mere Englishman intervening in a Scottish debate before the massed ranks of Scottish Members of Parliament. However, I have not come totally from out of space—in fact, I have come bearing gifts.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Housing and Planning Bill. The Committee passed an amendment which increased still further the generous increases in discounts which the Government had put in the original legislation. The discounts which we have increased are those that should be available for people living in flats, in high rise blocks or in deck access accommodation. As we know from tenants in London, Birmingham, Newcastle, Cardiff and Plymouth who live

in such accommodation, their mouths are watering in anticipation of increased discounts. I think that it would be totally unreasonable if the people of Scotland were denied similar opportunities. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will agree.
The amendment was passed. All parties participated in the debate and voted for it. The Labour party and the alliance supported it and five out of six Conservative Members who were not on the payroll supported it also. So the measure has a great deal of support in the House. It was a cross-party amendment.
As we know few flats have been sold. Many hon. Members are anxious that people should have the opportunity to buy their homes. A great number of houses have been sold, but not very many flats.
Discounts on flats and houses were in the past much the same. If somebody buys a house he has to pay the mortgage. He can pay other bills—maintain the house and insure it — but he is not forced to do so. lf, however, somebody buys a flat, he is forced each year to pay, in addition to his mortgage, insurance, maintenance charges, service charges and a whole range of other charges that are outside his control. It is perfectly right arid proper, therefore, that there should be a significantly higher level of discounts for the purchase of flats from local authorities.
A similar amendment was debated in Standing Committee on the Housing and Planning Bill. It was accepted and passed by the Committee. It is only right that the House should have a brief opportunity to discuss exactly the same amendment on this Bill.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I rise to support the amendment, for the fundamental reason that I believe that there should be consistency in the United Kingdom's housing policy and that a distinction should not be drawn between the rate of discount that applies in Scotland and that which applies in England and Wales.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says that he believes in consistency. Why, then, was that amendment passed without consultation with Scottish Members? It seems to have been passed by English Members and now they are trying to foist it upon US.

Mr. Shepherd: With great respect, there was a Scottish Member on the Committee. He was aware of the amendment and voted for it. The fact that other Scottish parties do not find that to be a convincing argument is not one with which I would necessarily agree. I should like there to be consistency throughout the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the right-to-buy legislation does not refer to flats, although they constitute 30 per cent. of the housing stock. However, sales of flats account for only 3 per cent. of total sales. If we cannot encourage the occupiers of flats to buy their homes, we shall end up with a completely unbalanced residue of housing stock. We shall be left with the most unsatisfactory form of housing.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) keep referring to flats, but their amendment does not cover all flats. A distinction is drawn between certain flats and the flats which are covered by their amendment.

Mr. Shepherd: Substantial statistics were not available to enable us to identify the nature of the sales,


but we reached cross-party agreement about those which it was identified are the most difficult to sell. That is why we focused upon the most difficult element, which we deemed to be those which are included in the amendment. For those reasons I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.

Mr. Maxton: The idea that there must be consistency between what happens in England and Wales and what happens in Scotland on housing matters is complete and utter nonsense. If that were so, there would not be separate housing legislation. One Bill would cover the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Northampton, North may believe that that is right, but no Scottish Members believe that that is right. The Bill contains major differences relating to the legislation that affects housing associations in Scotland compared with that which affects housing associations in England and Wales. There is no reason, therefore, why different discounts should not apply in England and Wales compared with Scotland.
I shall explain briefly why my Labour colleagues on the Standing Committee voted for the amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, North. It was a wrecking vote. It was designed to wreck the clause and make it inoperable —[Interruption.] Conservative Members may deny that but if they read Labour Weekly they will see that that was exactly the argument that was put forward by my hon. Friends who were leading for the Opposition.

Mr. Shepherd: It may be that one should read Labour Weekly, but it might be helpful if one read the Hansard report of the proceedings in Committee. The hon. Gentleman would then be better informed about the views of his colleagues.

Mr. Maxton: I prefer to read Labour Weekly. Scottish members have opposed and continue to oppose the Government's increase in the discount for flats. The discounts for the sale of council houses are too high. If we are pushed to a vote tonight, we shall certainly vote against the amendment.

Mr. Ancram: Having listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) I am amazed at his view that in order to find out what the Labour Party mean by their vote we have to read Labour Weekly rather than Hansard. However, it appears on the face of Hansard that many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues supported my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who have spoken in this short debate. His colleagues voted for an amendment of the type that is now before us.
I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friends about the need to increase flat sales. They know that the increase of 10 per cent. in the discount was precisely to achieve that purpose. Their argument in Standing Committee on the Bill was to the effect that they did not think that that went far enough. They wish a further incentive to be introduced.
The corresponding part of the Housing and Planning Bill has been amended, with the result that the provisions contained in the Bill that is before us today and in the Housing and Planning Bill are no longer identical. It would no be right in principle for tenants who live in similar houses to have a different entitlement to discounts in

England and Scotland. Therefore we have tried to create consistency where no consistency previously existed. Our intention is to try to keep England and Scotland in step. Therefore we shall look again at flat discounts and bring forward—if necessary in another place—amendments to ensure that there is no divergence.
I do not, however, believe that these amendments are satisfactory, and in their heart of hearts my hon. Friends may believe that that is the case, too. I recognise the strength of the views that have been expressed on an all-party basis in Committee and also in the House in favour of an improved discount for flat dwellers. I join my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction in giving the House an assurance that we shall look carefully at how best to give effect to those views. In the light of this assurance, I hope that my hon. Friends will withdraw the amendments.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said and for the way that he has said it. I said in my brief introductory remarks that my idea was to give to Scotland the opportunity to have the same discounts as are now to be made available in England and Wales.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) feels that Scotland does not need the same opportunities. That is his point of view and he is entitled to it. However, he then went on to say why the amendment was passed and why it was supported in Committee by the Opposition. I have a slight advantage over the hon. Gentleman. I was there. An amendment previous to this amendment was moved by the Opposition Front Bench. It was to show the Opposition's concern about the sale of flats in areas that they defined as being areas where it was difficult to let.
The reason for this amendment being put forward and eventually accepted was that it was agreeable to the Conservative Back Bench and the Labour Front Bench. It was not a wrecking amendment. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to read the Hansard report of the debate. He will find that there is a distinct difference between his housing policy and the housing policy of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The hon. Member for Perry Barr says that his housing policy is concerned with people rather than with dogma. His housing policy might therefore be in advance of that of the hon. Member for Cathcart. The time will shortly come when he will follow behind his hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr.
In view of what my hon. Friend said and the satisfactory commitment that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13

PAYMENTS ETC. IN COMMUNITY-BASED HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS. 1985 C. 69

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 10, line 35 after 'dwelling', insert ', or as the case may be part,'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 10, line 46, at end insert
'or—
(iii) has lived in a dwelling within the particular community mentioned in subsection 4(a) below


relevant to the association for a continuous period of at least three years immediately preceding the granting of the tenancy.'.
The amendment deals with the granting of tenancies to persons who are either committee members of community-based housing associations or who are close relatives of committee members. The granting of such tenancies is completely forbidden at present but the Bill goes some way to meet the rights of those people by including provisions under which in certain circumstances tenancies can be granted to committee members or to close relatives of committee members.
The provisions are very restrictive. Strong feeling has been expressed in local housing associations. When an amendment was moved in Committee there was reference to representations that I had from Linthouse housing association. Housing associations feel that the rules are grossly unfair to people who voluntarily give up their time to act as committee members of community based housing associations. The restrictive rules are unfair not only to committee members but even more so to close relatives. A son or a daughter is not eligible for the allocation of a house, regardless of need.
I am sorry that the Minister did not accept in Committee the amendment that such tenancies could be granted provided they fell within the published rules of the association for the granting of tenancies. That would be a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. In my amendment I am not returning to that concept although it would be best. I have included another condition, namely, that any person to be granted a tenancy either as a committee member or as a close relative should have had a continuous local association for at least three years immediately preceding the granting of the tenancy. That would meet the fear that committee members might abuse the provision by granting tenancies unfairly or unjustifiably to themselves or to their relatives.
I do not approach the matter on the basis of requiring stringent safeguards in case committee members behave disreputably. If there is a problem, it is offensive to approach it like that. Committee members give up their time voluntarily and put in much effort to improve housing conditions in their communities. They should be dealt with as public spirited local citizens who are doing their best for the local community. If there is a fear of unfair treatment, it might be necessary to put safeguards into the Bill. As I have said, the safeguard that was proposed in Committee was best. My amendment is much more limited, although it requires a genuine local connection.
The present provision is grossly unfair not just to committee members but to immediate members of their families. It discourages public-spirited people from acting as committee members of housing associations. We should remove the disincentive and treat committee members with fairness and generosity in view of their voluntary activities. Although the amendment is limited, it recognises that before a tenancy could be granted the prospective tenant should have had a demonstrative local connection for at least three years. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment in the spirit in which I move it.

Mr. Kennedy: I support the amendment. Skye and Lochalsh housing association is perhaps a peripheral example of the point the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) was making. When the association first wrote to me about the Bill in general it pointed out

that the 12 highly motivated active local residents give their time, skills and commitment to the association entirely voluntarily. It is important to stress that. I am glad that the right hon. Member did so.
Lest there be discrimination in carrying out the policy, the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that a person should have been established in the locality for three years before being granted a tenancy. That is relevant not just in Skye but in other parts of the Highlands where there are many holiday homes, the existence of which causes aggravation and disenchantment to many people who give their time voluntarily to the running of housing associations. That point has been made to me specifically by the housing association of Skye and Lochalsh. It pointed out that at least 12 per cent. of the housing stock in the area is used as holiday accommodation. In some communities the figure is as high as 50 per cent. Anything which helps to underpin a direct local connection, which has been sustained for some time is to be welcomed in the context of my constituency. Therefore I am happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Maxton: I briefly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). It is wrong that there should be an anomaly in the treatment of relatives of voluntary committee members of housing associations compared with district councillors and housing officers and housing employees of district councils. In the latter case there is no bar on the rights of relatives in the granting of tenancies. Yet people who have built the housing association movement in Scotland are discriminated against. Scotland is different from the rest of the United Kingdom with its community-based community housing associations. We have a right to be proud of those associations yet we are placing this burden on the relatives of committee members. It is not right. I support the amendment.

Mr. Ancram: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for tabling the amendment which, as he explained, would increase the range of circumstances in which a community-based housing association could grant a tenancy to a committee member or a close relative. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty arid Skye (Mr. Kennedy) was appraised of the fact that the clause refers only to community-based housing associations as designated under the terms of that provision. I do not know that the amendment would help in his area.
The particular problems of community-based housing associations in relation to the granting of benefits centre around the nature of their activities and the fact that those are confined to a limited geographical area. Their renovation programmes must, therefore, at certain points, conflict with the interests of their committee members or their relatives who live in houses which are or are likely to be affected by the programme. In that position there is a clear need on grounds of equity for an association to be able to buy houses from and offer a tenancy to those people when their existing houses are directly affected. The clause as drafted gives them that ability and the 12–months period makes allowance for those who have moved out of the area recently or temporarily.
8.30 pm
The right hon. Member for Govan has suggested that community-based housing associations should be able to grant tenancies to committee members or relatives who


are currently resident in the area but not in houses owned by or being acquired by the association. I see that as a distinctly different category of allocation from those categories that are already provided for in new section 15A(b). The same arguments about the direct effect of the development programme on their homes do not apply, and without that distinction they are not in a materially different position from the relatives of committee members of any other housing associations, whether community-based or not.
The provisions that are set out in clause 13 were drawn carefully to provide a specific solution to a particular problem, which is probably unique to community-based housing associations in Scotland. As such, I accept that it merits a solution that is not available to housing associations generally, but only to the degree that the problem can be demonstrated to be uniquely different from those of other associations. That is where the amendment falls down, and it is for that reason that I do not believe that it is necessary, or even desirable, to widen the clause in the way that is proposed. Accordingly, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. If he does not, I shall have to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it.

Mr. Millan: I have no intention of withdrawing the amendment, especially after such an unsatisfactory reply. The Minister has not directed himself to the real unfairness that currently exists. There are three community-based housing associations in my constituency that are operating in different parts of it, and committee members are typically those who have lived in their local communities all their lives. In some cases their sons and daughters have lived in those communities all their lives. It is absurd that they should be debarred statutorily from being allocated a house in their particular areas. That is monstrous.
There are satisfactory ways of avoiding any suggestion that someone is being treated unfairly or with undue favour. There are different ways of avoiding unfairnesses and the method that was proposed in Committee was rejected. The amendment sets out another approach and that, too, is being rejected. The Minister is turning it down without advancing any substantial argument in favour of refusing to deal with the problems. He is doing so without any real recognition of the sense of injustice which the present provisions cause to committee members as well as to their unfortunate relatives, who in some instances may have nothing to do with the committee members or with them becoming committee members. If I live in a certain community and my brother decides to become a member of a community-based housing association, why should that deny me statutorily of any prospect of being housed by the association? That is absurd and I have no intention of withdrawing the amendment.
Something will have to be done to remedy this injustice and if the Minister will not take the sensible course and have an appropriate provision inserted in the Bill in this place, I hope that those in another place will do the job that requires to be done.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 14

EXTENSION OF SECTIONS 44 AND 45 OF 1985 ACT TO SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 12, line 18, after '(e)', insert 'or (f)'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Schedule 1

AMENDMENT OF 1980 ACT

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 21, line 38, after 'charity', insert '—(i)'. No. 16, in page 21, line 41, leave out '." and (g)' and insert'; or
(ii) which but for section 4(4) of, and paragraph (g) of the Second Schedule to, that Act (exempt charities) would require to be so entered; or
(f) where by virtue of section 49(2) of the said Act of 1960 (extent) a landlord so mentioned is not one to which Part II of that Act (registration of charities etc.) applies, but—

(i) the landlord has, in respect of all periods from 3 October 1980, claimed and been granted (whether or not retrospectively), under section 360(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (special exemptions for charities), exemption from tax; and
(ii) the rules of the landlord, registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 and in force at the date of the landlord's first being registered by the Housing Corporation, were such as would have admitted of such exemption had it been claimed as at the said date of registration; or

(g) where, within a neighbourhood, the dwelling-house is one of a number (not exceeding 14) of dwelling-houses with a common landlord, being a landlord so mentioned, and it is the practice of that landlord to let at least one half of those dwelling houses for occupation by any or all of the following—

(i) persons who have suffered from or are suffering from mental disorder (as defined in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984), physical handicap or addiction to alcohol or other drugs;
(ii) persons who have been released from prison or other institutions;
(iii) young persons who have left the care of a local authority, and a social service is, or special facilities are, provided wholly or partly for the purpose of assisting those persons.";

(g) after subsection (11) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
()1A) The Secretary of State may by order amend, or add to, the list of classes set out in sub-paragraphs (i) to (ii) of paragraph (g) of subsection (11) above.
(11B) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall, as regards any registered housing association, at the request of the Secretary of State, provide him and the Housing Corporation with such information as will enable them to determine whether that association is a landlord in respect of which this section will not, by virtue of subsection (11)(f) above, apply; and where a registered housing association is refused exemption on a claim under section 360(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 the Commissioners shall forthwith inform the Secretary of State and the Housing Corporation of that fact.
(11C) Where information has been received by the Housing Corporation under subsection (11B) above and having regard to that information the Corporation is satisfied that the housing association to which it relates is not a landlord in respect of which this section applies, they shall make an entry to that effect in the register of housing associations maintained by them under section 3(1) of the Housing Association Act 1985, and they shall cancel that entry where subsequent information so received in relation to that housing association is inconsistent with their being so satisfied."; and


(h)'.

No. 19, in page 25, line 39, leave out '18' and insert '16'.

No. 20, in line 40, at end insert—
'(bb) whether, or to what value, the applicant or any of his family owns or has owned (or any of them own or have owned) heritable or moveable property; or'.

No. 21, in line 44, at end insert; or
(d) whether the applicant is living with, or in the same dwelling-house as—

(i) his spouse; or
(ii) a person with whom he has been living as husband and wife.'.

No. 22, in page 26, line 28, leave out from 'area' to; and' in line 33 and insert
'; or
(ii) any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 26(1) of this Act'.

No. 23, in line 34, after 'requirement', insert`—(i)'.

No. 24, in line 37, after 'period', insert; or

(ii) that a divorce or judicial separation be obtained; or
(iii) that the applicant no longer be living with, or in the same dwelling-house as, some other person,'.—[Mr.Ancram.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Ancram]

Mr. Maxton: I shall be brief, but I wish to make it clear that, while the Government have made some concessions for charities and special need housing, the basic objection to extending to tenants of housing associations the right to buy, especially to community housing associations, still remains.
We object strongly to the changes that the Government are making to discount arrangements both in raising the percentages for flats and in reducing the repayment period for that discount from five years to three. We do not believe that those changes are necessary. They are part of a sell-off. They demonstrate the Government's great ideological desire to get rid of every council house that they possibly can. This is the only part of their housing policy that is not directed to the cutting of housing expenditure. Against this background, I shall be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill's Third Reading.

Sir Russell Johnston: I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill's Third Reading. We are not opposed to the right to buy. We shall oppose Third Reading because it is our view that this measure could blight the remarkable progress of the housing associations, which have done so much to provide houses for those who would otherwise not have them, and to make improvements where improvements would not have been made, as well as filling a continuing gap between the private and public sectors in housing provision. We accept the right to buy, but we believe that there is a right to rent.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: We have been asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill which only tinkers with the problems of housing in Scotland. It refers to the sale of houses and the role of housing associations but it hides what is happening—for example, how vast sums are being extracted from the public purse for private gain. I am thinking of Newton Grange in my constituency, where many think that what is happening borders on a

public scandal. I refer to the former 550 National Coal Board houses at Newton Grange, which were on land leased from the Lothian estates by the board. When, in 1983, the lease expired, the land and properties reverted to Lothian estates. It is not disputed that many of the houses needed substantial improvement. Despite repeated questions to the Government and the NCB, I have never been able to discover whether Lothian estates acquired all of that property without payment. The secrecy of the matter brings me to the reasonable conclusion that there is something to hide.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that on Third Reading we must confine ourselves to what is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is going well outside the Bill.

Mr. Eadie: I intend to speak for only a few minutes and I believe that the House will realise that what I am saying is in order.
The case that I am outlining illustrates that the arguments used in support of the Bill are defective. In March 1984, the Housing Corporation approved funds for rehabilitation by Castle Rock housing association of 119 houses in the Newton Grange No. 1 housing action area. It is public knowledge that Lothian estates acquired a small fortune as a result of the Castle Rock housing association's decision. I do not criticise that, but Lothian estates paid little or nothing for the properties and demanded more than £300,000 for the properties which the Castle Rock housimg association proposed to rehabilitate. Housing associations are mentioned in the Bill. The Castle Rock housing association eventually paid £209,750 for the properties in the housing action area.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it extremely difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is telling the House to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Eadie: The Bill affects the funding of housing associations and how public money will be disbursed. I am therefore entitled to speak on behalf of my constituents and to say that the Bill should not receive a Third Reading.
Lothian estates acquired a small fortune of public money perfectly legally, but the circumstances surrounding the sale are of dubious propriety, to put it mildly. It is not that Lothian estates is a good landlord. When pressed about the dubious propriety of its actions, it oozes a spirit of benevolence. I have had many letters from constituents. I draw the Minister's attention to Mrs. Young of 47, The Square, Newton Grange because the House is entitled to know that the public purse has been robbed. The Minister happens to be the son and heir of Lothian estates, and therefore of the public money to which I have referred. We are entitled to know why he is piloting the Bill through and why he has the right to pilot it through, as he will get some of the money I have mentioned.
This is a disgraceful Bill in many respects. It will riot solve Scotland's housing problems and it will merely transfer housing from public to private hands. It is more concerned with profit than housing and I hope that the House will not give it a Third Reading. I also hope that the Minister will have the decency to say what is his vested interest and why he is taking the Bill through the House as a landlord who stands to gain substantial sums of money.

Mr. Ancram: When the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) considers that speech in the cold light of day, he may feel that his remarks were unworthy. Listening to the political prejudice enunciated by the spokesmen for the Liberal party and for the Labour party strengthens my view that the Bill is good for tenants and good for housing in Scotland, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 138.

Division No. 91]
[8.45 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hayes, J.


Ancram, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hickmet, Richard


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Blackburn, John
Hirst, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holt, Richard


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Butcher, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Colvin, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Cope, John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cormack, Patrick
Knowles, Michael


Corrie, John
Knox, David


Couchman, James
Lamont, Norman


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lang, Ian


Dicks, Terry
Latham, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawler, Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Robert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim


Dykes, Hugh
Lightbown, David


Eggar, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Farr, Sir John
Lord, Michael


Favell, Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Forman, Nigel
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Macfarlane, Neil


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fox, Marcus
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David John


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Gale, Roger
Madel, David


Galley, Roy
Major, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marlow, Antony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Gregory, Conal
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Neale, Gerrard


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Needham, Richard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Newton, Tony





Normanton, Tom
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Onslow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stern, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Pawsey, James
Sumberg, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Porter, Barry
Terlezki, Stefan


Portillo, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Powley, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thornton, Malcolm


Raffan, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trotter, Neville


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waddington, David


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Waller, Gary


Rost, Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew
Watts, John


Ryder, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitfield, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Woodcock, Michael


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Younger, Rt Hon George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Speed, Keith
Mr. Francis Maude and


Spencer, Derek
Mr. Gerald Malone.


NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Alton, David
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Anderson, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eastham, Ken


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Foulkes, George


Bruce, Malcolm
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Godman, Dr Norman


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, John


Canavan, Dennis
Gourlay, Harry


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clarke, Thomas
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Clay, Robert
Haynes, Frank


Clelland, David Gordon
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Howells, Geraint


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hoyle, Douglas


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Hon Greville


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dixon, Donald
Kennedy, Charles


Dormand, Jack
Kirkwood, Archy


Douglas, Dick
Lambie, David


Dubs, Alfred
Lamond, James






Leadbitter, Ted
Redmond, Martin


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Livsey, Richard
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Loyden, Edward
Rogers, Allan


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McTaggart, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Martin, Michael
Soley, Clive


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Spearing, Nigel


Maxton, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Stott, Roger


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Michie, William
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Mikardo, Ian
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, R.


Nellist, David
Welsh, Michael


O'Brien, William
White, James


O'Neill, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Gordon


Park, George
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry



Pavitt, Laurie
Tellers for the Noes:


Pike, Peter
Mr. James Hamilton and


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Salmon Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When the Government announced our intention to bring forward salmon legislation, there were critics who accused us of wasting parliamentary time on a minor issue when we had so many other problems such as unemployment. Leaving aside the point that legislation does not create employment, other than perhaps for the bureacrats, I believe that this attitude showed a considerable ignorance of the Scottish rural scene. While those employed directly or indirectly in the salmon industry may not add up to a lot of people in Glasgow or west central Scotland terms, they add up to a lot of people in the remote rural corners of Scotland, often in the most fragile economic parts of the countryside.
Angling in general is the biggest participation sport in this country. It is a multi-million pound industry. Salmon angling is the most sought after and often the most expensive part of the angling scene and, dare I say it, often the most unrewarding. There have been many efforts to quantify the value of salmon angling to Scotland. Figures have been put variously at between £22 million and £140 million per annum. If the true figure is somewhere in the middle that clearly indicates the importance of salmon angling to many parts of rural Scotland. In addition to ghillies, boatmen and keepers directly employed, hotels, self-catering, shops, restaurants and all parts of the rural economy benefit from the angler. That angler will come, and continue to come, only if he feels he has a reasonable chance of catching fish, and that depends on how well we conserve the stocks of salmon.
The legitimate netsman is equally an important part of the rural economy. I can think of parts of my constituency, and I am sure other hon. Members can do of theirs, where the netting forms a very important part of the annual fishing cycle, enabling fishermen and their families to make a living in the country, often, in my case, on islands. Their survival is linked, critically, to the survival of the salmon and in sufficient numbers to allow them a reasonable catch.
The Bill has a direct impact on employment in the countryside. Its aim is to improve the protection of the salmon so that the legitimate netsman and the angler can have continuing livelihood and sport.
The Bill has three main objectives. The first is the modernisation and improvement of the administrative arrangements in Scotland. The management of salmon stocks is the responsibility of district boards, which are composed of an equal number of upper, or rod, proprietors and lower, or netting, proprietors with the person owning the fishery with the highest rateable value being automatically the chairman. We propose to modernise and democratise the arrangements by providing for the chairman to be elected by a meeting of proprietors in the district and for the co-option of representatives of anglers and tenant netsmen who have a significant interest in the proper management of salmon fisheries.
Because of their substantial financial investment, the Bill provides for a constitution that gives proprietors a majority of the votes. The Bill also provides for amalgamation of districts where the proprietors consider that this is necessary to create a more viable management unit. All told, we hope that the new provision will encourage greater coverage of Scotland by district boards. At present, there are in existence only about half the boards in the 108 districts for which the existing legislation provides.
The second main objective is the streamlining of the arrangements for the regulation of salmon fisheries. It is intended that certain changes which at present require primary legislation may in future be achieved by statutory instrument, subject to parliamentary approval where appropriate. This will allow a quicker response to changing circumstances, for example in relation to the length of close times and the prescribed methods of fishing.
Thirdly, there are further measures to combat poaching through new offences of being in possession of unlawfully taken salmon, and also the powers enabling the Government to bring forward salmon dealer licensing schemes.
This is, of course, not a purely Scottish Bill, although the major part of it deals with the situation in Scotland. From the outset it was recognised that, as regards the new possession offence, the measures could be effective only if they applied throughout Scotland and England and Wales.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister accept that severe problems face the future of salmon in Wales, and no doubt in England as well? Why do the Government not see fit to take more radical steps to safeguard the interests of salmon and salmon fishing in Wales and England, as well as in Scotland?

Mr. MacKay: As I continue my speech the hon. Gentleman will see that we are taking important and radical measures in England and Wales. The main thing that we are doing in Scotland is to improve the arrangements for the district fishery boards, and, I hope, improve their role. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will touch on the hon. Gentleman's point about England and Wales when he sums up.
As some, at least, of those here this evening will know, the Bill has undergone fairly rigorous scrutiny in another place. One of the outcomes of this was the inclusion of powers which would enable the introduction of a dealer licensing scheme in England and Wales.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Following on the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), Welsh salmon conservation is important. Clause 28 will be important for Welsh salmon interests. Will the Government introduce a scheme urgently? Will the Minister advise the House that the obvious authority to implement the scheme is the Welsh water authority, which has the fullest knowledge of and involvement in Welsh fishing interests?

Mr. MacKay: I shall come later to the licensing scheme, especially with regard to Scotland, but I know

that the hon. Gentleman has to be in a Committee, so I say to him that in both Scotland and Wales we hope to act as quickly as possible. In Scotland we have the mechanism, which I shall explain when I come to that part of my speech. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food hope to act as quickly as possible in England and Wales. I think they recognise that the water authorities look like being the appropriate vehicle, but some thought will have to go into that because it is a new concept. In Scotland we already have dealer licensing, as I shall mention when I come to it.
The Bill has been criticised by some as falling short of what was required. It is a fact, however, that there has to be a limit to any piece of legislation, and I am in no doubt that the Bill addresses itself to the main elements of salmon fisheries which require attention. I hope that the Bill will commend itself to the House as an appropriate and practical response to what is needed.

Mr. John Morris: Before the end of the Minister's speech, may I declare an interest — an unsatisfied interest—as a fisherman in west Wales. We want better conservation measures. Will he consider sympathetically in Committee an amendment to provide that when rivers in Wales, or indeed in other parts of the country, are very low, all fishing should be banned for a short time in order to conserve the salmon and ensure that they arrive in the river at the appropriate time?

Mr. MacKay: I appreciate that some time will be spent in Committee on this difficult question of drought, just as there was in another place on the same subject. As a fellow fisherman, I appreciate the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure he is aware that there are major problems of definition and area. The simple proof of the oft-repeated statement that low water means that net fishermen take a disproportionate amount of salmon and that this has a deleterious effect on the stocks, is difficult to obtain. This is an important issue, and I shall listen sympathetically to the points that are made about it. I look forward to an interesting debate. However, the right hon. and learned Member was a little premature if he thought that I was about to sit down.
I said that the Bill was an appropriate and practical response to what is needed. It is practical because, down the years, there have been a variety of views on what should be done about salmon management, conservation and other matters. It would have been possible for the Government to rest on the fact that, beyond general principles and statements of intent, there could be said to have been a lack of real and general consensus over a number of areas. We have, however, focused on the areas of importance, and the general response in another place was that the Bill is a worthwhile measure.
In deciding to build on the existing structure and arrangements in Scotland, we were conscious of the fact that the Scottish legislation, essentially the Acts of 1862 and 1868, has stood the test of time in many respects, and one must acknowledge the far-sightedness of those who drafted these provisions. It is also worth noting that, despite the effects of activities such as high seas fishing and large-scale poaching, our salmon stocks have been remarkably well maintained. It is interesting to note—certainly as regards Scotland—that the fluctuations in


catches over recent years are not novel. There were short-term variations in the 1930s, and at the end of last century, every bit as great as that in the 1960s and 1970s. However, we cannot be complacent, and in particular we must continue to give a lead to other countries when it comes to national conservation measures.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I acknowledge the point about variations in given years, but surely my hon. Friend will accept that world stocks of salmon have declined by about 50 per cent., as indeed they have in Scotland, over the past 20 years.

Mr. MacKay: I accept my hon. Friend's point about the world stocks of salmon. However, if my hon. Friend were to look at the figures in the most recent statistical bulletin published by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he would see that over the past 30 years there was first a marked increase in the salmon take and then a decline. The current figure is not too far from the figure for the early 1950s.
I know that there are debates on how the cycles are caused, and these debates have gone on for a long time. There are mysteries about salmon, including these cycles. It is important that we take all possible steps to conserve salmon and make certain that we can, as far as knowledge permits, control these cycles, which would be to the benefit of both the legitimate netsmen and the salmon angler.
Before I describe the various clauses I should like to draw the House's attention to the four particular points.
The first is the possession offence, to which I have already referred. As the House will know, poaching is no longer confined to small local operations, but is carried out on a large and well-organised commercial scale. The provisions in the Bill will allow action to be taken against those involved with the outlets for poached salmon and should have a significant effect on the level of poaching by making it more difficult to dispose of illegally caught fish. Clauses 21 and 29 set out respectively provisions for Scotland, and England and Wales. The fact that the wording is not identical reflects a difference of starting point. In the Scottish case we have chosen to build on the existing provisions in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Protection Act 1951, whereas in England and Wales the approach has been to build on the Theft Act.
The net result of both clauses is to ensure that it will no longer be the case that someone can be in possession of salmon, believing, or having reason to suspect, that it had been illegally taken, and not be convicted. Hitherto, this has been a major gap in the enforcement of salmon legislation. The new clauses strike the right, and essential, balance between improving the prospects of convicting those involved in the illegal handling of salmon, without going so far as introducing measures which could lead to the conviction of innocent people.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Can the Minister think of any comparable clause in our legal system that attributes guilt on the basis of suspicion?

Mr. MacKay: There are some examples, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) may be able to find them. I cannot put my hand on them while I am making this speech, but they are there. It is sensible to take this small action to make sure that people cannot get away with large-scale poaching of

salmon. Perhaps the hon. Member approves of that, but I know that most hon. Members do not. In my constituency we could greatly improve the chances of catching people and bringing them before the courts and, if the evidence is properly there, of getting convictions, if the House passes the two clauses.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill (Clackmannan): Is the Minister suggesting that it has been acceptable to poach one for the pot, as was said in the debate in the other place, but that larger-scale poaching is unacceptable? If he is claiming that, he is flying in the face of historic evidence about the treatment of poachers.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is a question of scale. The Bill is being approached from a conservation point of view. The person who goes out and gets one for the pot is not endangering the species, but those who poison rivers or net rivers by setting miles and miles of monofilament net are endangering the species. That is especially true of the poisoner. If the hon. Member has ever seen a river after a poisoner has been at work, he will know the deep feelings of bitterness in the breasts of countrymen when they see the havoc that has been wreaked down river.
Dealer licensing will be a valuable complement to the new possession offences, and it is the intention to have detailed schemes under subordinate legislation brought forward as soon possible after the enactment of the Bill. These schemes will be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses. Here again the net result will be the same, although the starting points north and south of the border are different. In Scotland we are building on the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. In England and Wales, where there is no similar legislation, the provisions will have to be made in another direction. I have already said that the water boards are one possible direction in which my right hon. Friends in the south will be thinking of moving.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend. The dealer licensing scheme is crucial to the effectiveness of the Bill in dealing with poaching. Will it be possible for the Committee to have some information about how it will operate?

Mr. MacKay: I note what my hon. Friend says. It depends on how readily and quickly we can move with our consultations in Scotland with COSLA, as it is directly involved through the Civic Government (Scotland) Act and the police, and in England and Wales where the Government will have to talk to, among others, the water authorities. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we shall have any more details in Committee about how we intend to implement this. Of course, that point will come to the House for debate under the affirmative order provision.
I was about to mention my third point concerning water bailiffs. There has been much ill-informed comment in Scotland about the role of water bailiffs in the dealer licensing scheme, including the suggestion that they be given the power to enter and search dwelling houses. Let me scotch—if I may use that word—that suggestion once and for all.
With regard to unlicensed premises, which include dwelling houses, the police have a power of entry and search under section 6 of the 1982 Act. They have, however, to satisfy a justice of the peace or sheriff, on


oath, that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an activity for which a licence is required is taking place there. If satisfied, a warrant may be granted by the sheriff or justice of the peace. That power of entry and search is one reserved to the police and there is no intention of extending the power to water bailiffs in the context of salmon dealer licensing.
The fourth point concerns clause 33 which commits the Government to a review, three years after the enactment of the Bill, of the salmon net fisheries in the north-east of England and in the Scottish east coast salmon fishery districts as far north as the river Ugie. This review embraces the undertaking given in my hon. Friend's statement of 7 November 1985 to review the effects of the new measures being introduced in the north-east English drift net fishery. The decision to introduce this clause was welcomed in another place, and I hope that it will commend itself to this House, and the conflicting interests in it.
I hope the House will find it helpful if I describe briefly the specific provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 creates new salmon fishery districts but builds upon existing districts by retaining existing coastal limits and existing names. The new districts will include, not only the major rivers flowing into the sea between the existing coastal limits of the district but all other rivers that do so. Regulatory provisions are applied to minor rivers as they presently apply to the major rivers in any district. Subsection (2) as read with clause 2 will enable districts to be amalgamated. There is, in subsection (4), the power to make minor adjustments to district boundaries.
Clause 2 and schedule 1 provide the power and procedure for making a designation order to abolish salmon fishery districts and create new districts. This power can be used, as I have said, to enable districts to amalgamate or, where the extent of existing districts is considered to be unsatisfactory in some way. The procedures to be followed before a designation order is made, are set out in schedule 1 and include provisions for consultation, publication and the receipt and consideration of objections.
Clauses 3 to 9 deal with the regulation of salmon fishing. Clause 3(2) deals with technical matters such as the construction and use of cruives and dams and the mesh of nets. Clause 3(3) deals with the duration of the weekly close time and enables changes to be made by regulation subject to annulment by resolution of either House. At present, any such change would require primary legislation. This change provides flexibility which has long been asked for.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the Minister recognises that there are anxieties about this part of the Bill, not that it is not right that the Minister should from time to time update these specific rules. However, fishermen may find that, when the Minister makes a change in a permitted fishing method, the only recourse open to an aggrieved person is to ask a Member of Parliament to pray against an order. There may be a repetition of the position that exists now over the monofilament net ban, where large sections of the industry believe that they have not been consulted and their Members of Parliament have no means of voting against the provision.

Mr. MacKay: That is the usual cry when all consultations are carried out. If people do not agree with the results of the consultation, they say that the consultation has not been adequate. However, this is the way that Parliament works and it is the only way that the changes to legislation that are needed from time to time, for example in the close time, can be made.
It will be observed that, whereas the annual close time for all districts except the Tweed is currently a fixed period of 168 days, although it may commence on different dates in different districts, clause 6 provides that in future the
annual close time will be a continuing period of not less than 168 days".
There is no change in the provision that angling may take place after the start and before the end of the annual close time. However, as a district may in future, as a consequence of a designation order under clause 2, include more than one major river, we felt it prudent to provide that there might be different close times for different rivers within a district. It will be noted that a change in an annual close time may be made only on the application of a district salmon fishery board, or on the application of any two proprietors within a district where no board is in existence. The procedures in schedule 1 contain safeguards with regard to publication, notification and so on. Alterations to estuary limits under clause 7 will also depend on an initiative at district board or proprietorial level.
Clause 9 provides that regulations made under clause 3 will, in general, apply to the Tweed. The present annual close time of 153 days for that river is retained but, as in the case of other rivers, as a minimum period in future.
Clauses 10 to 12 deal with salmon fishery proprietors and their qualifications to vote for and be elected to a district salmon fishery board. The present distinction between upper and lower proprietors and their power to appoint a mandatory to act for them are retained. Clause 11 provides for the unusual position of there being only one proprietor of a salmon fishery in a district, and where, following enactment, he ceases to be so because other rivers and proprietors are included in the district.
Clauses 13 to 17 provide for the constitution, membership, powers and duties of district salmon fishery boards, clause 13 and schedule 2 deal with elections to and the constitution of a district salmon fishery board. The concept of an association is new in salmon legislation, but I am advised that we are on sound and desirable grounds in requiring proprietors to form an association and elect a committee which will then become the district salmon fishery board.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister clarify the relationship between the Government and brown trout interests?

Mr. MacKay: That is opening up the much wider issue of the relationship between salmon fishery boards and brown trout interests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the legislation deals specifically with salmon. We may have an interesting debate in Committee about whether brown trout should come within the scope of salmon fishery boards and their names altered, or whether we should consider an alternative to preserve brown trout fishing which, at the risk of digressing from the motion, is equally important to many people and the tourist industry.
As at present, boards will be voluntary organisations so that they will be created only at the wish of proprietors.
The procedure for setting up boards is set out in schedule 2. We have retained the existing procedure for weighted voting, but have updated the valuation figures which determine whether a proprietor is entitled to multiple votes. We have also provided that, however small the valuation of a fishery, the proprietor will be entitled to one vote. Provision is made in the schedule for the co-option of representatives of anglers and tenant netsmen.
I have already mentioned our intention to introduce a salmon dealer licence in Scotland. The enabling power is clause 19. The intention is that district and islands councils will be the licensing authorities. At an earlier stage in our consultations the idea of a dealer licensing scheme was welcomed in principle by COSLA and the Association of Chief Constables. My officials will be consulting further with these and other bodies, and I shall certainly try to get some of the details for the Committee stage.
Clause 20 adds to section 2 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 permitted methods of fishing for salmon in the sea. Power is given to define by regulation the terms net and coble, bag net, fly net or other stake net. This should be a useful provision.
Clauses 21 to 27 deal with offences and introduce new penalties in Scotland. Clause 21 provides the new offence in Scotland of a person being in possession of salmon either believing that it has been unlawfully taken or possessing it in circumstances in which it would be reasonable for him to suspect that it had been unlawfully taken. Clause 29 provides for the offence as it will apply in England and Wales. Although worded slightly differently in places, the effect of the clauses will be essentially the same and provision is made so that prosecution may take place regardless of which side of the border the original offence took place. It will be a defence to show that no relevant offence had been committed.
Clause 22 will enable a court to find an accused guilty of any one of the specified alternative offences if satisfied that the accused did not commit the offence charged but committed the alternative offence.
Clause 23 makes it an offence to introduce salmon or salmon eggs into inland waters in a district where there is a district board without the board's consent.
Clause 24 provides for exemption from certain offences where a person has the permission of my right hon. and learned Friend. It will be noted that he may give his consent only where all affected proprietors in a salmon fishery district have also consented. That provision will, for example, enable an otherwise illegal method of fishing to be used in individual cases—for example, salmon ranching or other developments in salmon fishing.
Clause 25 adds to the present exemptions for acts done for scientific purposes or for the purpose of protecting and improving salmon stocks.
Clause 26 provides for the application of clauses 24 and 25 to the River Esk and to the River Tweed.
Clause 27 removes the right of a clerk to a district board or any other person to prosecute offences relating to salmon. In future prosecutions will be undertaken solely by the procurator fiscal. Clause 28 enables a dealer licensing scheme to be introduced in England and Wales.
Clause 29 makes it an offence in England and Wales for someone to receive or handle salmon where be believes, or it would be reasonable for him to suspect, that it had been taken illegally. This clause parallels clause 21 which relates to Scotland.
Clause 30 will remove the unnecessary requirement under section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 that fish farms in England and Wales must obtain the consent of the water authority before they introduce fish or spawn into their waters. This is a change which was forecast in the 1981 consultation paper on inland and coastal fisheries in England and Wales.
Clause 31 modifies the penalties under the 1975 Act for fishing with an illegal or unlicensed instrument, removing a distinction between acting alone and acting with another.
Clause 32 amends the provisions of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 regarding fishing of licensed nets by authorised servants or agents of the licensee. The effect will be that, in areas where the number of licences issued is restricted under section 26 of the 1975 Act, the servants or agents must be accompanied by the licensee when they fish with the net. The only exception will be in the case of illness or injury.
Clause 33, as I said earlier, commits the Government to a review, three years after the enactment of the Bill, of the salmon net fisheries in the north-east of England and on the Scottish east coast.

Mr. Morrison: rose—

Mr. MacKay: I will finish, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
In the course of my remarks I have dealt with schedules 1 and 2. I should also refer briefly to schedules 3, 4 and 5. Schedule 3 is a necessary provision to allow existing district boards to continue in operation in their present form for a period of up to three years if the proprietors so wish. Boards can, of course, be reconstituted in terms of the provisions of the Bill within this period. Paragraph 6 of schedule 4 will remove some of the restrictions which currently apply to the publication of salmon statistics. Schedule 5 is a list of repeals and from them the House will be able to judge the extent of the modernisation contained in the Bill. We are repealing entirely seven Acts, with removal of sections of some other Acts.
One of the features of the Government's approach to consideration of the Bill has been the willingness of Ministers and our Departments to listen to the views of salmon and other interests and where possible to take these into account. That has, I think, been acknowledged as a constructive and essentially non-political approach and I very much hope that this attitude will be reflected in our debate today and in the succeeding stages in this House.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Under-Secretary of State may well be hopeful, but I may be about to shatter some of his hopes, because I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Salmon B ill [Lords] on the grounds that it would extend the powers and privileges of private proprietors of salmon fisheries without making adequate provision for anglers or for the wider public interest, and that it is an inappropriate and inadequate measure to deal with the urgent need to conserve salmon and other fish species, and to protect the environment of rivers and estuaries for the benefit of the whole nation's sporting, recreational and environmental interests.
I should declare an interest in the Bill because it would, as I understand it, extend my rights and privileges as one who happens to farm land adjacent to a Scottish river. I do not fish on the River Tweed or derive any benefit from


it—nor do I want to—but the Bill will give me a greater say in the administration of the river than it gives to the people who fish on it. It is amazing that, in this day and age, legislation should entrench the powers of absentee landlords, foreign investors and, in this case, a Labour Member of Parliament while doing practically nothing for local fishing interests. That is absurd, and that is why I have tabled the amendment.
I acknowledge the obvious fact that the number of salmon in our rivers has fallen disastrously in recent years. Urgent action is needed to protect these magnificent fish from the threat of extermination. Scottish Office statistics published in December last year show that the total recorded catch of salmon and grilse in 1984 was the lowest since records started in 1952. The trend since the mid-1960s has been extremely worrying. With that in mind, obviously I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to do something about it, but that is about as far as I can go.
The Government, in presenting the Bill and using this parliamentary time, have given themselves an opportunity to bring Scottish freshwater fisheries legislation into the 21st century, but instead they have opted to stay in the 19th century. They are simply building on failure by readopting the discredited framework of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts 1862 and 1868 which concentrated all power in the hands of the private proprietors of salmon fishing rights, the riparian owners.
It is a bit much for the Under-Secretary of State to say that he is democratising Scottish district salmon fishery boards. The franchise will be extended only to the people who own the fisheries. How that can be called democratisation is beyond me. Even supposing that those riparian owners never took any account of their own private interests in exercising their powers on district salmon fishery boards, it is inevitable that others will see the district boards as protectors of the landlords' interests. Similarly, bailiffs appointed by such boards are bound to be seen as the landlords' men. I believe that this fundamental inequity in the constitution of the Scottish district boards is a significant factor in the lawlessness afflicting so many rivers in Scotland.
The concept of the private ownership of a wild fish which happens to be swimming in water adjacent to someone's estate is pretty absurd. That is why most people —this point was raised earlier—have a certain sneaking respect for the traditional poacher who catches a few fish in the laird's water. He may be breaking a law which most people believe is silly. That is all very well when we talk about the one poacher catching the one for the pot about which we hear but, because the law has fallen into disrepute, there is a big poaching industry using sophisticated gear and marketing techniques. We have only this discredited law and these laughable district fishery boards to deal with the problem in Scotland.
We want a new type of river authority with genuine representation for all the people with legitimate interests in the river, including elected local councillors. I believe that the token presence on the existing boards of co-opted representatives with no power to outvote the riparian owners is hopelessly inadequate. We need genuine representative river boards wich will command the respect of all concerned. The Bill simply restores the failed and

discredited structure of Scottish river boards from the 1860s legislation. I believe that that fundamental flaw will undermine the conservation objectives in the Bill.
As we all know, the crisis facing the Atlantic salmon has international dimensions. We now have a fully fledged international organisation—the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation — based in Edinburgh working on this problem. If we want NASCO to succeed in its efforts to get Greenland, Iceland, the Faroes and the other north Atlantic countries to observe their quotas and to control the fishing efforts in their waters, we must put our own house in order. That means firm and fair control of all our salmon fisheries, both in our rivers and at sea. The thrust of new legislation should be to conserve salmon for the benefit of all concerned, but I doubt very much that the Bill can measure up to that objective.
As for the detailed points of the Bill, first must come the proposal to extend the annual and weekly close times to allow more fish to get to the spawning grounds. That is a sensible objective, although the Salmon Conservancy and the Salmon and Trout Association want that principle to be further extended. There may be a case for a more flexible approach, based on scientific evidence, in a particular year or in a particular river, in much the same way as certain sea fisheries are regulated from time to time. However, when referring to any of these restrictions it has to be pointed out that there is no close season for those who ignore all of the regulations with absolute impunity.
The licensed net fishermen on the River Tweed—the river that I know best because I live on it—voluntarily have postponed the start of their season during the current year, but when I went for a walk along the banks of the River Tweed near my house last Sunday I saw plenty of evidence of the continuing activities of the poaching fraternity.
I agree with the Government that poaching will probably be most effectively and fairly deterred by controlling the trade in salmon. There are two ways to control that trade: either by tagging salmon, as is the practice in New Brunswick, Canada or, as the Government have decided to do, by introducing a dealer licensing system. Given the right framework, either of those systems could work. However, it would have been absurd if the licensing system had stopped at the English border. I am happy to notice that the Government have already accepted that point by introducing an amendment in the other place.
The regulation of dealers should go hand in hand with properly constituted, staffed and funded district fishery boards. I have said something about the shortcomings of the constitution of these boards. I must now say something about the fact that there is to be no Government funding of the boards. I must also express concern about the staffing of the boards, in particular about the appointment of water bailiffs. The landlords who control the district boards can appoint whomever they like as bailiffs. The Bill will provide the bailiffs with very extensive powers. Clauses 21 and 29 establish powers to search vehicles and premises. The courts will be able to convict upon the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness, presumably the water bailiff. There is to be the disturbing extension of a recent precedent whereby an accused person can be presumed guilty of the offence of handling a poached fish until he can prove that he is innocent. Clause 21 says that a person who is in possession of salmon


in circumstances in which it would be reasonable for him to suspect that a relevant offence has at any time been committed in relation to the salmon shall be guilty of an offence".
Even if it is reasonable to suspect that he might have known that an offence had been committed, he can be guilty of an offence. We should be thankful for the small mercy that the Bill also says:
It shall be a defence in proceedings for an offence under this section to show that no relevant offence had in fact been committed in relation to the salmon.
However, it also says:
It shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness.
It may be too difficult to get somebody prosecuted for poaching now. However, with that kind of legislation on the statute book I fear that it could be rather too easy to get innocent people convicted. It may appear to be attractive to set that kind of legislative precedent in order to stamp out particularly heinous crimes such as drug trafficking, but is it justifiable to undermine some of the fundamental principles of Scottish, and for that matter English, justice, in order to make it easier to prosecute poachers who are after salmon?
I appreciate that there is a need to provide effective control over the trade in contraband salmon, but the House should consider carefully the civil liberties aspects of that part of the Bill. The Government are challenging the Scottish principle of corroboration. The principle that somebody is innocent until he is proved guilty is also being undermined.
If water bailiffs are to he given that kind of power and authority, I want to be absolutely certain that the individuals concerned will be properly selected, trained and controlled—if necessary, with the sanction of police authority. In England and Wales, bailiffs are appointed by properly constituted public water authorities, but in Scotland we are back to our old friend, the riparian owners on the district salmon fishery boards. It is right to demand that the bailiffs should be properly controlled and supervised.
On the licensed netting operations in river estuaries and off the coast of the north east of England, I have some sympathy for the 182 licence holders who are carrying on a long established traditional fishery off the Northumberland and Yorkshire coast. But with modern monofilament nets their catch has increased dramatically from about 15,000 fish in 1965 to over 50,000 in 1984 at a time when the overall number of salmon running in the rivers has been falling spectacularly. Obviously something will have to be done. Clause 33 provides for a review of the fishery. I understand that the Government may be considering the possibility of phasing out that drift net fishery.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): There is no question of the Government considering that. The Government are considering what they have put into the Bill. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to put any such words into the mouth of the Government.

Mr. Home Robertson: That was not my understanding, but I am grateful for that assurance from the Minister of State. I believe that the traditional netting techniques, subject to proper controls, are a valuable part of the local economy in the areas concerned and, indeed, form an attractive part of the local scene in those areas. Those fisheries provide regular seasonal employment and are part

of the tourist attraction of the area. So it should not be necessary to hound out of existence those people or the licensed drift net fishermen that I have been talking about. I am glad to hear that that is not the intention of the Government.
The Government may not be thinking about closing down the fisheries, but I know that my old friends the riparian owners are making strong representations about the closure of licensed net fisheries. I am not happy about such a suggestion. The riparian owner lobby want to build up a lucrative business with rich seasonal visitors. We must ensure that wherever possible regular employment is protected.

Mr. John MacKay: That last remark is uncalled For. If the hon. Gentleman were to read the reports of the debates in another place, he would see that some of the major owners in Scotland were happy to go along with the amendment that is proposed. In fact, no division was called in the other place on going down the road that the hon. Gentleman has conjured up. His attack on the riparian owners in this regard is uncalled for.

Mr. Home Robertson: I read the reports of the debates in another place. It was a fascinating catalogue of vested interests. I have also read the representations made by some of the fishing interests. It is clear that, although they might not put it in writing, many of them would like to do away with the netting operation. I hope that it will be possible to achieve a compromise which will conserve the salmon and provide a fair share of the available catch to all legitimate interests. In passing, I should like to see considerably more public access to salmon fishing and rather less emphasis on the exclusive rights of the very rich on some rivers.
I conclude with a general observation about the restrictive scope of the Bill. It started off as a largely Scottish Bill. It was expanded somewhat in another place but it is worth quoting the words of the Welsh Water Authority in a recent report:
Illegal fishing is possibly the most important single factor affecting Welsh fisheries.
I have had similar representations from the North West Association of Sea Angling Clubs, and the Bass Anglers Sports Fishing Society makes the point that the Bill should be extended to other endangered fish species such as bass and trout, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It has also been suggested that the Bill could deal with the problems of pollution and acid rain. Those subjects can be touched on in Committee.
I am greatly indebted to all the organisations that have taken the trouble to comment on the detail of the Bill and in particular to the River Doone Angling Improvement Society and the Scottish Anglers National Association. All in all, it is a sadly unsatisfactory Bill. The anglers are disappointed by certain aspects and the debates in another place show that even their Lordships could see certain flaws.
The Bill is supposed to deal with the critical situation which is facing Atlantic salmon in Scottish rivers. I fear that it will fail for a number of reasons, especially because of the fundamental lack of credibility of the unrepresentative district salmon fisheries boards which will have to apply the law in Scotland. It is for that reason that I urge the House to support the reasoned amendment.

Mr. John Corrie: First, I declare an interest in the Bill. I have a mile and a half of salmon fishing on the River Dee in the south-west of Scotland, which is open to anyone who wants to fish it. Children from the local village fish it free of charge at any time if they want to do so.
I give a warm welcome to the Bill. It makes a start to conserving salmon, and that is vital to the whole of Scotland, especially for the tourist industry. We should like to see much tougher legislation directed to netting at sea. We must accept that if we are to continue to have salmon in Scotland we shall have to continue to talk to representatives of countries where our salmon return each year. Only if we reach agreements with them shall we have salmon returning to our rivers.
I pay tribute to the existing river boards and those who look after them. Much work is done even now to try to ensure that our rivers still have salmon in them. Much is spent on restocking rivers, by seeding and ensuring that there are fish who return in future. The river of which I have a mile and a half has a hydroelectric dam at sea level within the tidal area, which makes it extremely difficult for the fish to get up the river.
Droughts present a problem, and it is tragic that when rivers are low we are allowed to continue fishing. Something must be done about that. When there is stale water in the rivers in my area, the salmon will not face it. The same fish will move up and down the estuary on numerous occasions, and every time they come back up yet more are caught by the nets in the estuary. Until the fresh water runs, the fish will not go up the river, and there is the danger of disease setting in. I hope that we can consider possible ways of closing off rivers when there are serious droughts.
I shall not go through the Bill clause by clause. I am aware that many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate and I shall try to be brief. However, there are a number of questions which I wish to ask. One of the most damaging features in most rivers in Scotland is acid rain. The damage can be reduced by keeping trees well away from the sides of our rivers, especially at the heads of the rivers where there are large pine forests. When we have the new boards, will we have any powers even to advise those in the upper reaches where we have the spawning beds that a piece of simple conservation in keeping the trees back from the river heads will do an enourmous amount to help to protect our fish?
We must protect our salmon from commercial poachers and the methods that they use. My river was contaminated with cyanide only two years ago. It is only when one sees the destruction that that causes, from the point where it is put in the river downstream, where it killed every living thing apart from the salmon that it was supposed to kill, that one ceases to have any sympathy for the poachers.
It is important that the salmon get up the rivers and it is vital that the smolts get down the river. That was reasonably well covered in section 19 of the 1968 Act. However, there is a new dimension that we must consider. Many rivers in Scotland have fish farms on them and most of the fish farms draw their water off the river through sluices. We must seriously consider putting grids on sluices to ensure that the smolts are not passing through

to the fish farms. If that happens, it is guaranteed that they will die quickly from the diseases that are to be found in the farms. The smolts are of no use to the farmers of trout.
I see that the Bill covers salmo salar and salmo trutta. Herling is mentioned in many of the Acts of Parliament which are affected by the Bill and I wonder whether it is also covered here. Trout are a game fish in the rivers that flow into the Solway, but I assume that they are not covered by the Bill.
The Bill is intended to improve salmon management and to improve and conserve stocks. I am pleased that the option of tagging has not been dropped. That would have led to legalised poaching. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Agyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), knows that I pushed very hard for a licensing system. Like the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), I am pleased that England and Wales will now be covered, because there is no doubt that much of the fish that is poached in the south of Scotland is taken to England and sold.
It is important to consider the Bill's approach to the illegal taking of salmon and the carrying of salmon. We shall have to wait until the Committee stage to consider that matter more deeply, but it worries many hon. Members. I also wonder whether the Bill covers the theft of all salmon. We have salmon from the river, salmon from nets on the coasts and fish farms. Theft from fish farms is a new industry. Will those who steal fish from fish farms attract the Bill's penalties?
There has been a substantial increase in the tonnage of fish produced by fish farms, and that will continue. A scarce commodity commands a premium price. I hope that, as fish farms produce more fish, the pressure on poachers will diminish. It is too late to go into a long debate on drift netting but, tomorrow, before the House will be a Statutory Instrument banning the carriage of monofilament nets in Scotland. It must be galling to all Scotsmen to think that the shoals of salmon which go down the east coast of Scotland, where they cannot be caught by such nets, are slaughtered when they reach the north of England. We must scrutinise netting in that area. The numbers that have been quoted already show that the stocks are diminishing in those areas.
I am not sure what happened in another place regarding the owners of smokers for salmon and roe. Will they be licensed? I hope that anybody who abuses a licence will lose it and be liable to punishment.
Rod fishing is undoubtedly one of the fastest growing leisure sports in Scotland. Although some beats are extremely expensive, many other rivers are cheap and easy to fish. However, such rivers will be useless unless the fish come back. I sincerely hope that the Bill will help to conserve salmon. Those of us who enjoy fshing and perceive the growing requirement of fishermen for rod and line want it to succeed.

Mr. Roy Mason: I welcome the Bill, but I must express my disappointment over the fact that, on the major issue of salmon conservation, it falls far short of the demands that many of us have made over the years.
Now that the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation is being established in Edinburgh, we must prove that we take the problem of salmon conservation seriously. It is a pity that, having at last obtained a slot in


the legislative programme, the Government have produced such a timorous and half-hearted measure. I must admit, however, that some progress has been made. Thanks to the expertise and detailed knowledge of a number of Members in the other place, the Bill now before us has been improved.
On the question of salmon conservation, the Minister must constantly be aware and repeatedly be reminded that three major steps must still be taken: nylon monofilament gill nets should be banned, poaching should be drastically curbed and drift netting off the north-east coast should eventually cease if we are serious about salmon conservation. In 1984, 7,700 salmon were taken by this method, compared with about 2,000 in 1959. This is a sign of the rising take of salmon by this interception netting technique. It is bound to have a calamitous effect on salmon stocks, on conservation and on legal salmon fishing off Scotland.
The Government have recognised the seriousness of the situation and, albeit slowly, are starting to impose some controls and restrictive measures, in alliance with the Yorkshire and Northumbrian water authorities, to curb the exploitation of the system. The licensee has to be present when a salmon is netted—and not before time. Too many licences have been issued with not many checks on who is using them. The Bill will help to curb some of the abuse. Night fishing by drift nets is to be banned, and we are to see the introduction of standard close times. As the Ministry said, this should help to control the problem—control, but not get rid of it.
I am aware that some fishermen's livelihoods are at stake here, but there is no reason why over a phased period of time, with proper compensation for those drift netters who are likely to suffer, the Government should not be able to set a date for the ending of drift netting off the north-east Yorkshire and Northumbrian coastline. According to the 1985 Yorkshire water authority board, 29 drift net licences were issued for the 1984 season, and these are to be reduced to 22. It is interesting to note in the report that due to low river flows at the time when fish would normally run, they remained at sea, where high numbers of salmon were caught, no doubt by the drift netters.
Yorkshire has one major salmon river, the River Esk, linked by Whitby to the sea. Because of the poor rod catches of salmon in past years, the Yorkshire water authority has introduced 30,000 salmon smolts into the middle and upper reaches, of which 1,000 were tagged to assess the numbers returning to the river. It will be interesting to see how many do so.

Mr. James Tinn (Redcar): My right hon. Friend refers to phasing out, with compensation by the Government, of the drift netters off the north-east coast in order to conserve salmon stocks. He accepts that idea, but I certainly do not. Would he apply that principle in order to conserve coal stocks and phase out some of the Yorkshire mines, with compensation for the miners?

Mr. Mason: That is exactly what has been happening. The Government have been managing to run down the coal mining industry by providing financial compensation. The 23 nets involved off the Yorkshire coastline should be adequately compensated, but given time to phase out their operations. I think that this will be a worthy step in the cause of salmon conservation.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt raise the same point as he raised on the last salmon Bill, and I shall give him the same reply.

Mr. Beith: It is a slightly different one. What is the logic of phasing out the drift net fishery at sea, as opposed to phasing out the net fishery or even the angling in the rivers? Why should any one section be removed?

Mr. Mason: It is obvious from the figures that I have given that the drift net fisheries off the north-east coast of Yorkshire and Northumbria, taking 7,700 salmon which are searching for the estuaries and the rivers and never getting the chance to spawn, are having deleterious effects on stocks.

Mr. Gummer: Why does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that that 35 per cent. should be phased out and the other 65 per cent. ignored? I find that difficult to understand.

Mr. Mason: I do not want it to be ignored. I am just making the point that drift netting should cease in relation to Yorkshire and the River Esk. That should apply also to the Northumbrian coastline. It should be phased out with financial compensation.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Salmon Bill [Lords] and the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Salmon Bill [Lords]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Mason: There is no mention in the Yorkshire water authority's last report of salmon poaching on the River Esk, yet there is no doubt that that highly organised criminal practice has been responsible for the poor rod catches and, therefore, the introduction of the 30,000 smolts. but the writing has been on the wall for years.
The 1982 report of the water authority said:
Salmon catches on the river are still well below the longterm average and the trend is a steady decline.
Even in 1981 the water authority said:
It is sad to relate, salmon catches on the river"—
and so on. The wording is the same. In 1980 it said:
During 1979 there was a dramatic decline in the number of salmon and migratory trout caught by rod and line in the River Esk".
Why? One reason is the undoubted take of salmon by drift netting at sea, but the other main reason is poaching.
In 1977, 40 illegal fishing nets were discovered on the River Esk alone; in 1978, 80; in 1979, 100; in 1980, 157, and in 1981, 180. Five persons caught in possession of an illegal net were fined—two of them £25, one £50 and two £100. None received the maximum penalty of £500, and none were gaoled. That was disgraceful leniency by magistrates. They imposed no deterrent measures, yet they had the weapons in their hands. Magistrates should realise that poaching our salmon rivers in Scotland, Yorkshire and south-west and Wales has become a national scourge and that it is incumbent upon them to help to wipe it out.
In 1982, in spite of the many criminal gangs operating on the River Esk, nine salmon poachers brought before the


petty sessional division of Whitby Strand were found guilty and fined an average of £59. What an indictment of the Bench! As recently as last year 153 illegal nets were found, yet there were only 18 convictions. That is on one river—the salmon River Esk in Yorkshire.
I quote from a letter that I received from a member of the Yorkshire water authority. He said:
It is now necessary for the bailiffs to work in teams of four when patrolling the river, and the problem can only be contained by maintaining this level of manning together with the full backup facilities of radio and other surveillance technology and the co-operation of the local police force … Moreover, it is often very disappointing to have put considerable effort into obtaining a prosecution for poaching and then find that when the case cames to court, the fines are ridiculously low. The expense to the Authority of each case can be very high indeed, but the costs awarded by the courts rarely even partially cover the expenditure.
Poaching is now big business. Poachers operate in gangs, creating intimidation on the rivers and using violence against bailiffs. They wreck the legal fishermen's boats and nets and put them out of business. They use high quality nets and even cyanide. In a letter, a bailiff in the south-west told me:
The water bailiffs around Barnstaple have received physical violence from poachers—one bailiff had paint remover thrown over his car and there have been numerous cases of tyre-slashing … It has been suggested that a lot of revenue earned by these poacher crooks goes back into drugs and other serious crimes, i.e. smuggling of drugs into England, and most poachers seem to have criminal records in other fields.

Mr. Buchan: In view of the terrible situation, is it not curious that my right hon. Friend is content to leave matters in the hands of private security, in the form of river boards and water bailiffs, instead of having proper social prevention?

Mr. Mason: I have not dealt with that yet, but that was what my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said when talking about providing better facilities and improving the water boards in Scotland. The water authorities want more facilities and more money, and it is incumbent upon the Government to assist them in this respect.
There have been many complaints of water authorities not being able to provide the requisite number of bailiffs because of the squeeze on cash. The bailiff from whom I received the letter was astounded by the information that I received from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which showed that 283 illegal nets were recovered from Devon and Cornwall—the highest total for any region—followed by 180 on the River Esk in Yorkshire, 126 from Anglia and 88 from Wales.
This is a widespread national criminal racket, and that is why I welcome the national licensing system. On Tuesday 4 May 1982 I questioned the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on whether he would introduce legislation to control the sale of salmon through licence holders only. That is now in the Bill, so at least some progress has been made.
I hope that one of the penalties to be considered will be the loss of a trading culprit's licence. Once we have embarked on the course of prosecuting those who have obtained salmon in suspicious circumstances — as the Minister said at a very low price, received at a late hour, or by a backdoor transaction — and they are found guilty, their licence to trade should be in jeopardy. That

is the sort of deterrent that is required. The receiver should be as guilty as the stealer. These poacher crooks must be stopped, and if we cut out the outlets and have the right sanctions for those outlet dealers who are found guilty, we have a chance of doing so.
The ban on nylon monofilament gill nets must also be considered. I am pleased that the Government are considering banning the carriage of monofilament nets in British fishing boats while Scottish waters, and also the use of gill nets to fish the salmon. That is another encouraging advance.
I shall not intrude into the massive, detailed management problems of the Scottish salmon fishery districts and boards. For me, suffice to say, the Bill has advanced from a timorous measure to more useful legislation. It may be better still when it is returned to another place. I support it, for the reasons that I have advanced, and although I know full well that it could be better, I shall not oppose it tonight.

Sir Hector Monro: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). He has always taken a firm line on the conservation of salmon and all fish stocks and he is known as a highly competent angler.
The right hon. Member's speech shows the paradoxical position of his hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on the Front Bench, who is prepared to divide the House on the Bill. That seems quite astonishing. The hon. Gentleman is out of touch and quite wrong to criticise the district salmon fishery boards which after all represent the netting authorities and local authorities as well as the riparian owners. If those volunteers did not look after most of the rivers in Scotland nobody elsewould. The hon. Gentleman has set a poor example by his speech tonight for making any improvements in fishing in Scotland.
Bearing in mind the constraints of time and the breadth of legislation, I have to say I am a little disappointed that the Bill does not go as far as I would have liked. It is, to a degree, a missed opportunity. It is not often that we get the opportunity to discuss salmon fishing, and even less often that there is any legislation on it. I am glad that the Bill made good progress in the other place and had some valuable amendments to it that were either introduced by the Government, or accepted by them after detailed discussion.
I hope that we shall have a little more time before Committee, because we have to carry out detailed consultations with a large number of fishing interests, and consider amendments. I hope that we shall have at least a fortnight before the Committee begins. By then, too, the House will have had the advantage of the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs that deals with fishery protection, which will give valuable information.
Sadly, I have no interest to declare, having no fishing rights. However, I have a constituency with a number of good salmon rivers and a major salmon smokery, which provides much employment. There is also employment for those involved in netting on the Solway Estuary.
I am pleased that the Government are making changes in the district salmon fishery boards. Their structure had become somewhat antiquated and greater flexibility will


be an advantage, although I see difficulties without some form of financial incentive or pump-priming for new boards to be set up where there are none now.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I am keen, as are my hon. Friends on both sides of the Solway, to have a joint Solway board. I hope that we shall be able to introduce an enabling clause that will allow the district boards in Scotland to discuss with the North-West water authority the future of the Solway without having to come back to the House for primary legislation. This may be of tremendous advantage to salmon fishing in the Solway area.
My noble Friend Lord Gray said that we would close the river Esk loophole. I say no more than that, because it has been a difficult problem, but I would like assurances again from my hon. Friend the Minister that this will take place in Committee. I also hope that the North-West water authority will soon bring in a limitation order so that it can restrict the number of haaf net licences that is issued on the English side of the Solway.
I have studied all the detailed proceedings in the other place and I was disappointed that the Government could not see their way to support an amendment to restrict netting and other methods of fishing in exceptionally low water conditions caused by drought. The noble Lords who tabled the amendment won all the arguments but withdrew it. I hope that this will be considered because there is a tremendous weight of evidence in favour of it, although the Government kept coming back with the reply that they had no evidence to support the amendment.
One of the main objectives of the Bill is to deal with poaching. Parliamentary questions have highlighted the number of prosecutions. I noted reports in one newspaper today that there were no fewer than 2,300 nets confiscated on the River Tweed, and 240 prosecutions in that area. For one river, albeit a major one, that is an incredible number of poachers. It is right that the Government should take as tough a line as possible to stamp out something that has become intolerable. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, either in Committee later or when replying tonight, will spell out with the greatest clarity where we stand under the new provisions. The new provisions are particularly complicated and I have read contradictory views from the Lord Denning, and the Lord Advocate. I would like to know exactly what a bailiff, the police and the courts can do when dealing with the issue of poaching.
I would also like clarification about the position of the receiver, who is now likely to be prosecuted under the "suspicion clause". I am wholly in favour of the toughest possible line but I would like to have clarified exactly what that line is.
I am glad that the other place and the Government have brought in dealer licensing throughout England and Wales as well as in Scotland. As I have a constituency on the Border, I can see tremendous problems ahead if that provision remained for Scotland alone.
I believe that the heart of the Bill is conservation, although I believe that the Government are perhaps not taking a tough enough line on this issue. If we do not ensure that sufficient salmon come up to spawn, there will not be many salmon left in a few years' time. I am sure that the Government are well aware that there has been a drop in salmon stocks of nearly 50 per cent. over the past 25 years. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State examines any of the books of statistics on the subject, he will see that

over the past 10 years in particular there has been a very considerable drop in the salmon catch. If there were no farm salmon, there would be a great scarcity of smoked salmon and other salmon products that are providing so many jobs in the United Kingdom for a saleable product.
It is vital that we get conservation right. We must examine conservation not only from the domestic aspect but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) said, from the international aspect. We have heard reports from the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation and we know from the last conference that Denmark will not do anything about Greenland or the Faroes and America will not do anything about Canada or vice versa until we set our house in order and show a greater interest in genuine conservation.
We must take a serious look at conservation. That will certainly mean—and I know that this will not be widely accepted in some parts of the House—that we must over a period of years, with compensation, phase out drift netting around the English coast. We have done that in Scotland although I accept that we still have fixed nets and stake nets and other forms of netting in Scotland. In terms of proportion, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that 35 per cent. of the nets were drift nets, but the percentage of catch from that 35 per cent. is very high indeed. I hope that we will examine drift netting in greater depth when we deal with the Bill in Committee.
Many of the other aspects raised by hon. Members this evening, the large number of anglers in the United Kingdom, the attraction of income into the country, the large number of jobs in the fishing and haulage industries, tourism and hotels and the rural economy, all depend to an extent on salmon coming up the rivers of Scotland.
We must re-examine the close time for nets and drift netting. I welcome the Bill as a step forward but if three years elapse after the Bill is enacted it will be 1990 and then perhaps there will be two more years for arguments and discussions on statistics. It will be 1994 or 1995 before any further significant step is taken other than the important action which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State took in November when he announced further restrictions. We must shorten the three-year period and take action quickly. I hope that we shall take into the account the whole coast line, not just that from Yorkshire to Peterhead, as the Bill does at present. I want to consider the west coast as well as the east coast of England and Scotland.
We must not let this opportunity slip further. We must do all we can to combat poaching and phase out drift netting, with compensation in the near future. We can do an immense amount in Committee, but tonight I am glad that we are taking a step forward, and I wish the Bill well.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I have no interest to declare, but I represent people who are involved in every category of salmon fishing that has been mentioned tonight. Drift netting at sea, netting in the rivers and angling are all relevant to my constituency's economy. I feel as passionately about conservation as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), but that does not lead me to conclude that I should put any one of those groups of people out of business. We should find a way to conserve salmon while all those categories of people continue to derive a living from those activities and, in the case of angling, a pleasure.
This is not primarily a party political matter. Indeed, it requires considerable effort to work up a party political argument about any of these matters which cut across almost all party issues and party lines. If any area evokes old party controversies, it is the composition of district boards.
I welcome the Bill. It contains a useful collection of provisions to deal with salmon conservation problems. It disproves the theory that a rolling stone gathers no moss, because it has gathered a considerable amount in its extremely lengthy proceedings in another place. An hon. Member suggested that the Bill had gone through the other place expeditiously, but, far from it, their Lordships devoted far more time to this legislation than to almost any other legislation before them. There was a significant parade of interests ownership across the Benches. Obviously, it was a well-informed debate at every stage, although certain interests may have been more numerously represented than others.
A weakness in the Bill has been demonstrated in one of its Scottish aspects, the district boards. The Government's management proposals for Scottish rivers other than the Tweed, which already has its own management structure, cannot be described as a great advance in democracy. The proposals retain heavily weighted voting according to ownership and price, and involve the co-option of angler and tenant netsman representatives, rather than achieveing representation which can be respected by the people involved.
My noble Friend Lord Thurso sought hard to find alternatives based on matching the interests of owners, tenant netsmen and anglers and selecting a chairman without any one group dominating the process. Under existing law, he would be chairman of the Thurso district board in perpetuity, so it is all the better that he put forward better suggestions than those which the Government have so far put forward. That should receive more attention in Committee because it seems that the Government are continuing to give a great deal of support to the landowning interests of the upper proprietors, and to show insufficient concern for the desires of tenant netsmen and anglers to be directly represented.
I welcome the provisions to tackle poaching in various ways. The problem is massive. Hon. Members who represent the Tweed know how serious the problem is there. An hon. Gentleman suggested that salmon enjoy an uninterrupted course along the Scottish coast until they are suddenly slaughtered in the English nets. There is a curious use of words in which a fish caught by the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) with a rod is not killed—mysteriously its life is supposed to be enhanced by its being caught by him—whereas a fish that finds its way into an English net is slaughtered. That is a strange difference in the use of language.
I was digressing, because the point made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) underestimated the serious extent of poaching along some sections of the Scottish coasts and which some of the provisions are intended to deal with. I welcome the attention that the Government have given to that. The provisions will require detailed examination because they represent some curtailment of civil liberty. I have to concede, as a Liberal Member who is extremely concerned about civil liberties, that existing provisions on the

Scottish and English side of the border do not appear adequate to secure conviction. It is possible for somebody who, by any layman's assessment, must have been poaching to get off again and again. Clearly, the provisions need to be looked at in some detail.
I particularly welcome the decision of the Ministers, after the debates in another place, to extend the dealer licensing system to England and Wales. It would have been absurd to have dealer licensing only one side of the border. As a noble Lord said in the other place, his first act would have been to set up in Berwick, in my constituency, as an unlicensed salmon dealer with none of the restrictions that would then apply on the other side of the border. Clearly, it is essential to extend that provision to England and Wales.
I am worried about the way in which it is set out in the Bill. I hope that Ministers will look at the provisions of the Bill to see whether they can go a little further. I appreciate that the procedures will be a little slower than in Scotland because of the need to get agreement on how it will be done but I have two grievances about the way it is done in the Bill at present. The Bill gives the powers to the Minister to make orders dealing with absolutely fundamental things. It gives him the power, by order, "to create criminal offences". It also gives him the power to
make provision, … for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of any provision made under this section.
Maximum offences, maximum fines and maximum prison sentences are all set out in the relevant Scottish clause. I think that the Minister must look at what I think is the impropriety of including in the Bill the power to make orders specifying what is or is not a criminal offence and what is or is not a maximum fine or prison sentence. They are fundamental things which should be on the face of the legislation.
I understand that the Minister has brought the clause into the Bill in its present form following discussions in another place, but he should have time, and if there is not time he should give himself time, to see if we can get more of the basic powers on the face of the Bill. We should leave to order some of the mechanics, administration the decisions about which bodies are involved and the time of introducing it, which I hope will be as quickly as possible because I would not want to see a gap open between the Scottish provisions and English provisions. It cannot be right if we create criminal offences by statutory instrument. That is not the way the House proceeds and we should not do so in this case.
My second doubt about the way of introducing the licensing dealer system is my worry about the privatisation of the water authorities. If the authorities are privatised it does not seem right that they should become the body which decides whether somebody should be a salmon dealer. I do not propose to enter into the issue of whether they should be privatised—we all have views on that—but it does not seem appropriate for a private water undertaking, of the kind I have experienced, to make that decision. In my constituency, the water supply is already privatised but the water authority is not. The regulatory body is publicly accountable and that must surely make sense for the dealer licensing system. In fact, I do not see that it makes sense for the functions concerned with the licensing of drift netting to be carried out by private enterprise. I cannot believe that Conservative Members who are concerned about the drift net fishery can believe that it would be right, in the long term, for those powers


to proceed to a private body when it concerns the decision as to whether someone may or may not earn his living by having a salmon licence.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Some Conservative Members have anxieties which go further. They are not wholly happy about the prospects of angling interests being preserved if privatisation takes place.

Mr. Beith: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. It would then be difficult to restrain the amount that would be charged to anglers for their right to fish. Currently, there is a considerable amount of subsidy from the water rate income of the water authorities towards fisheries management and fisheries conservation. My own water authority—the Northumbrian water authority—puts a great deal of money into fishery management and conservation. Indeed, it has been estimated that it puts more money into that than all the Scottish district boards put together. The present system avoids the anglers' licence fees going up to as high a level as they might. Therefore, there are a number of fundamental issues here which I believe are and should remain public regulatory functions. That will have to be considered in Committee.
Although I welcome the dealer licensing scheme, I still think that we could have made a more serious attempt to consider the salmon tagging option as a way of tackling the problem. That view is shared by many people in the fishing industry. I have in my hand a salmon tag which is the essence of the regulatory scheme operated in New Brunswick in Canada. That device could have been tried here. Fishermen in the Northumbrian area have made representations to me about it. Welsh anglers have said that they would welcome it if Wales were used as a pilot area.

Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor): We in Wales would certainly support salmon tagging. We are concerned that we shall not be able to trace poached salmon. I believe that the Bill should be called the salmon conservation Bill. We believe that measures should be undertaken to tag salmon in this way.

Mr. Beith: Obviously, I agree with my hon. Friend and with those hon. Members who at different times have pressed for a tagging experiment.
The Bill now contains, following its progress through the other place, provisions for a three-year review of all net fisheries up the east coast, including the Northumberland sea drift net fishery and all the river net fisheries up the east coast of Scotland. Some of the fishermen in my constituency have been worried about this. They have said, "We had the November measures which the Minister brought forward. We thought that we were then entering a settled period." They feel a sense of insecurity because, after three years, the issue will be brought up again. My argument to them is that I believe that the licensed drift net fishery has nothing to fear from a proper scientific examination of the basis on which net fishing is conducted along the coasts and rivers. That is one of the measures for which we have been crying out for a long time.
All sections of the salmon industry could then be told by the scientists, with some authority, "This is the position. These are the dangers. This is the amount by which the catch needs to be reduced or increased. This is the level at which you can continue to catch. We must now

calculate how this can be shared." If we have the scientific basis on which to do that, I think that we can regulate the fisheries properly.
I therefore say to fishermen in my constituency that, worrying as it is always to have new dates and threats hanging over us, I see an alternative prospect. A three-year review could fully vindicate the drift net fishery and prove to be a powerful counter argument to people such as the hon. Member for Dumfries and the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) who want to phase it out completely. If we talk about phasing out the drift net fishery, we are talking about phasing out the livelihood of large numbers of people. In my part of the world, Northumbria, we are talking about employment for more then 500 people in the fisheries. We are talking about an essential part of the year-round fishery. The fishermen who go out on the small Northumbrian coble have a balance of activity over the year, fishing for salmon, lobsters and crabs which, between them, provide their fishing livelihood. We cannot ask those men to go back to the hemp nets of past years any more than we can ask the anglers to go back to some of the methods they were using in earlier years. Using hemp nets depended on night work, which the Minister has now, understandably, restricted with his new measures. I do not think that it would be reasonable to expect the type of arduous cleaning operations that went with all the old nets to be part of the present life of a fisherman, which is hazardous enough anyway.
I am convinced that tackling the problem of illegal fishing on the Tweed in Scotland and in England is likely to produce a much more significant improvement in salmon conservation than any restriction imposed on the drift net fishery. Naturally, the drift net fishery must be properly regulated. That has been happening for a number of years. If overall reductions have to be made, the drift net fishery has to take its share in them.

Mr. John MacKay: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. He is making some valid points. I have been listening in particular to his remarks about Northumberland drift net fishing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must know, if he has ever gone to the Tweed valley to fish, as I have done, that the feeling there, to put it mildly—

Mr. Home Robertson: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State was not fishing in my water.

Mr. MacKay: That sedentary intervention from the hon. Gentleman shows the miserable man he really is, because he has never asked me! When I go to the Tweed valley to fish, I come across people with strong feelings about the interceptory fishery in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I wonder, as a gentle chide, what the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) who represent the fishermen who fish on the Tweed, think about his fishing.

Mr. Beith: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) represent effectively the interests of their constituents. Indeed, we have all found it possible to recognise our common interest in salmon conservation and


to appreciate that regulation should apply to all fisheries. There is no more emotive an issue in my part of the world than the salmon fisheries, and broadly speaking, all those who fish for salmon think that all other categories of people who fish for salmon should not be doing so. We must achieve a balance that will ensure that salmon are available for all those who earn their living from the salmon fisheries.

Dr. David Clark: Did the hon. Gentleman note in yesterday's annual report the statement that most of the 2,300 confiscated nets were taken from the mouth of the Tweed? The report went on to refer to illegal drift net fishing off the Berwickshire coast. Let us not put all the blame on the Northumberland fishermen.

Mr. Beith: I agree. There is a large box around the Tweed which no Northumberland drift net fisher may enter to fish, and in that area we have the most serious poaching problems. A feature of the Northumberland drift net fishery is that it is, to a degree, self-regulatory in that those licensed to engage in it do not want illegal fishing to take place in the area. The report showed that many successful prosecutions had arisen from information obtained from the legal fishery. The drift net fisherman has an interest in ensuring that his fishery is properly conducted.
The Minister has visited the fishery, as did his predecessor, and has seen for himself the way in which it is regulated. The measures that he has introduced will have the effect of decreasing the take from the fishery. The fishermen have themselves asked for some of those measures to be taken. For example, the restriction that the licence-holder must be in the boat—unless he is taken ill—when fishing is taking place was suggested by the representatives of the industry on many occasions.
Some of the Bill's other provisions will cause difficulties for that fishery. For example, the night restrictions will be a problem because of variable tide times. If a boat cannot get to sea over a four or five hour span because of tide conditions, an apparently simple night restriction may extend far into the day as well. Fishermen

recognise that they must accept some of these limitations if they are to have a degree of security for their future livelihood.
I remain worried over some of the Minister's powers, not because I believe that Ministers should ignore such things as new provisions affecting fishing methods in Scottish rivers and the Tweed but because the parliamentary negative procedure is an unsatisfactory instrument.
In Clause 3, for example, Ministers are given powers to make changes overnight in what is a permitted fishery. When such powers are used, hon. Members can only pray against the relevant order. The matter will doubtless be debated in Committee upstairs, not on the Floor of the House, and in such a Committee there is no real vote. At the end of the day, one can only vote saying that the Committee has considered the instrument; and if one votes to the contrary, that has no effect and, anyway, even that action is not reported to the House. If Ministers get it wrong, hon. Members will not be able properly to represent the interests of their constituents. I shall, accordingly, table amendments at a later stage to have the affirmative procedure adopted for some matters.
I hope that the Minister recognises our concern in this matter. If not, I trust that he will recognise it by lunchtime tomorrow, by which time we shall have considered in Committee upstairs the problems that have arisen over the Scottish monofilament net ban. That will reveal how frustrated hon. Members and interested parties can feel if they cannot get across their point of view.
The most important objective of the Bill ought to be to exstablish a new impetus for the management and conservation of salmon. We ought to be able to pool our commitment in order to achieve that aim. It will involve a certain amount of expenditure—that is a weakness of the Scottish provisions of the Bill—if we are properly to look after our rivers. The north-east fisheries have demonstrated that expenditure and care can increase river catches. Some of the rivers in Northumberland, like the Coquet, have shown extremely good results. These rivers are within the area affected by drift net fishing, but good management has produced good results. Good management could do a great deal for salmon conservation. I hope that this Bill will help us to achieve that aim.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Having listened to every speech, and having initially assumed that the Committee stage would be short, I now realise that I was completely wrong. The Committee stage will be very long; there will be a great deal to talk about.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in expressing the hope that the Committee stage will not be too rushed. The Bill received its Second Reading in the other place only on 14 January. It is right and proper that legislation should be debated at a measured pace to allow those outside Parliament to express their views on improvements to the Bill.
I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that drift net fishing should be properly regulated and that fishermen must accept some limitations upon their activities. It is fairly clear that drift net fishing is not properly regulated and that limitations are not accepted. Lord Home of the Hirsel reminded the other place that the admitted catch in drift nets off the north-east coast of England totals about 77,000 but that it is believed that the actual catch is more than double that figure. There must therefore be scope for proper regulation of drift net fishing.

Mr. Tinn: I am interested in the noble Lord's assertion, but can the hon. Gentleman tell me what evidence the noble Lord or anybody else was able to produce to support the assertion?

Mr. Morrison: No, I cannot, but I suspect that the noble Lord based those figures on certain information. Even if he did not, he reinforced the argument of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that it is essential that we should be fully informed and that there should be a proper scientific basis for the review that is provided for in clause 33.
I am surprised that on a Bill that deals with salmon management reference should he made to an increase in democracy. I am not sure that that will help the salmon. It is much more important that we should get on with dealing with salmon management.
Salmon are good to eat and exciting to catch. Thus they are born into a dangerous and unfriendly world. Modern technology is now available to man. Therefore, we must exercise control over our ability to catch salmon, if they are not to go the same way as the dodo or, at best, reach the dangerous state that was once reached by the American buffalo and that now faces the Arabian oryx.
A laissez-faire policy is no option if we are to retain salmon. In fact, such a policy is no option in any sphere. Fortunately, that has been realised for a long time, even though vested interest has often vied with vested interest about how and when man-made laws should intervene to protect what has been called the king of fish. Of course, it is not with man alone that the salmon has to cope. At every stage of its development in the river it is subject to predation from different types of bird and from other fish. The salmon has naturally learnt to cope with all of that. It is only when it has been in the sea for some time that the odds become stacked against it. There it runs into the first triumph or disaster of modern detection and technology.
I have a book entitled "The Salmon", published as recently as 1959, whose chapter on the salmon in the sea starts with the words:

Once the smolts leave our rivers, we see little or nothing of them: we do not know where they go to; there is no evidence to show that they stay near our coasts.
The author of that book was described as one of the world's greatest experts on the salmon. That was in 1959. Would that his words were still so, but they are not. Maturing salmon have been discovered in the north Atlantic where 30 years ago no salmon were netted. In 1985 the Greenlanders had a quota of 852 tonnes—a quota which I believe they did not achieve—and the Faroese fishery yields an estimated 120,000 fish. Small wonder, therefore, that between 1967 and 1984 world catches of Atlantic salmon have declined from 10,400 tonnes to 5,600 tonnes.
The first and possibly the most important consequence of the Bill, when enacted, will be that by demonstrating our concern and action at home we will ensure that the British voice will carry more weight in international councils concerned with the conservation of salmon. Those fish which escape the high seas fisheries must face the offshore nets and, above all, for many salmon the north-east coast fishery. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has announced a weekly 60–hour close time for the north-east drift net fishery and also that the other place has already much improved the Bill by introducing in clause 33 a three-year review of the fishery and the insistence in clause 32 that only a licensee and not his agent may fish or net.
I should like three or possibly four additions to this part of the Bill. I say "possibly four" after considering again clause 33. This is why I was trying to interrupt my hon. Friend when he was introducing the Bill. In the context of the review, the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland have to take account of the need to ensure that sufficient salmon return to the river to spawn and that fishing for salmon by means of nets is properly managed.
There is no reference in that clause to rod fishermen. I should have thought that they should be included because, as I understand it, it is not necessary for a huge number of salmon to return to a river to provide as many smolts as the river can carry. So it is not only for spawning purposes that we wish salmon to return to rivers, we also want enough salmon to return to meet the needs of rod fishermen. That point should. be taken into account in the three-year review. If I am correct, clause 33 is deficient. But that apart, I should like there to be a phased abolition and prohibition of nylon monofilament nets. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that such nets are much more efficient than their predecessors. However, they do untold damage to untold numbers of salmon, many of which will undoubtedly die in the sea. Although the fishery itself may be traditional, there is nothing traditional about nylon monofilament nets.
I should like to see the extension of all weekend close periods for netting in line with what has been done already with the 60–hour provision. I should like there to be powers in the Bill to control netting when rivers are low, a point which has been made strongly already. There is no doubt that many salmon bide their time in the sea or the estuary when the river is low. The evidence is that the proportion of net-caught salmon to rod-caught increases dramatically in drought years. I do not know why the Government have not yet been prepared to accept the


evidence which has been produced by some water authorities and which is now beginning to become available from others.
Before following the salmon out of the sea and, once again, up its river of origin, I wish to refer to another of its predators, the seal. I know that the seal is an emotive animal, but allegedly the United Kingdom grey seal population has increased to about 84,000 from the 24,000 at the time of the heyday of Scottish salmon fishing. Apparently, one seal consumes about 2 tonnes of fish per annum. That fact emerged during debates on the Conservation of Seals Bill of 1970. Obviously not all of that fish is salmon, but the increase in the seal population is bound seriously to affect the stock of salmon. This issue cannot be shirked and seals must be sensibly culled.
I have no doubt that the proposals to deter poaching and the licensing of dealers throughout Great Britain will be beneficial offshore and up river. I think that the other place did a good job by including England and Wales in dealer licensing. Likewise, I believe that the reorganisation of the system and the constitution of district salmon fishery boards are welcome measures, but they would perhaps be more effective if they were grant aided, as the previous Conservative Government suggested in their White Paper of as long ago as 1971.
Salmon fishing is of enormous benefit to the economy of Scotland, and surely that is justification enough for some grant aid. The amount of extra money which salmon fishing can bring into the Scottish economy is enormous and some of that is creamed off in taxation. I should have thought it a reasonable quid pro quo for the Government to provide grant aid for the district salmon fishery boards.
This is a useful and helpful Bill. It was described originally as a "wee…tim'rous beastie", but it has been much improved by another place. I hope that the House will improve it a little more. Even then, the Government cannot rest on their laurels. All credit to the Government for introducing the Bill, but the salmon is a resource of such infinite importance for food and sport that constant surveillance of the salmon stock, especially in home waters and in the Atlantic, must continue and action must be taken whenever necessary.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In the Gracious Speech at the beginning of the Session, about the only reference to Scotland was a commitment by the Government to introduce a Bill to protect salmon. In the light of the problems facing the people of Scotland, that tells us something about the Government's priorities
In the debates on the Bill in another place, the majority of the participants declared their interest. Many of them are involved in salmon fisheries as owners of rivers or estates. The Bill does not deal with the underlying fundamental issue of the feudal system which allows these landowners to claim ownership of wild fish.
It would not be in order for me to develop this point now, but I submit that there ought to be community involvement in the fisheries, which would protect fish and allow more reasonable access for the public.
I have sympathy with people who are stocking their rivers and are facing depredation from poachers. I have no sympathy with poachers who place explosives or poisons in rivers. They deserve everything that is coming to them.
That type of poaching is unknown in the salmon rivers of the Western Isles and the north. The references that I have heard have all related to the lowlands.
There have been references to the old "one for the pot" poachers, but nobody known to me can recall such a tolerant attitude on the part of owners. As the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, it is an absolute figment of the imagination that landowners give a benevolent wink when they see a man coming along with a salmon to feed his family.
The Minister said in his opening remarks that this legislation is aimed at those who are getting away with the wholesale poaching of salmon. Perhaps very few of us would take exception to that, but this Bill is aimed at one man and one fish just as much as it is aimed at those who are going in for wholesale salmon poaching.

Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that poaching is not rife in Scottish salmon fisheries. Certainly on the Tay, which is largely in my constituency, poaching is a great problem.

Mr. Stewart: It would be ridiculous of me to deny that salmon poaching occurs. Of course there is some poaching on the Tay, and probably on every other salmon river in Scotland. I do not deny that for a moment.
The Salmon Conservancy—I do not know what body that is, but presumably with a name like that it has some interest in salmon—says:
There are no effective, long-term conservation measures such as increased weekly and annual close times for the nets, restrictions on all types of salmon fishing in times of crisis such as drought".
Of course not. This Bill is not about conservation. It is to protect — if that is the right word — the rights of landowners. That is what it is all about.
Netting is one of the obsessions of the landlords, although they do not mind netting their waters when they want a fast buck. I have seen them at it. They have induced the Government to introduce a prohibition on monofilament gill nets, although many Scottish fishermen are using such nets for legitimate fishing of flatfish and crayfish. That is the problem with which the Government will be faced. Despite what the Minister said earlier, fishermen's organisations in Scotland complain that they were not consulted before the ban on monofilament nets was introduced.
The clauses dealing with the district salmon boards are totally unsatisfactory. To quote the Salmon Conservancy again:
The balance of influence on the boards still remains in the hands of the major proprietorial interests whose eligibility for election to the board is determined by the value of the fishery. Co-opted anglers and tenant netsmen have restricted powers only.
In no circumstances can the co-opted members outnumber the proprietors.
There are clauses in the Bill that would be repugnant to natural justice and subversive of the long-standing legal axiom that one is innocent until proved guilty. In another place the noble Lord Grimond warned against departing any further than necessary from what he referred to as established principles of "British law."
I know about Scottish and English law, although I do not know of British law. However, I know what point he was trying to make. Clause 21(3) provides:
It shall be lawful to convict a person…on the evidence of one witness.


I submit that that is a change in Scottish law. Clause 22 says that if:
the court is not satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence charged but is satisfied that he is guilty of another of these offences, it may acquit him of the offence charged but find him guilty of the other offence and he shall then be liable to the same punishment as for that other offence.
I should like to hear the Secretary of State's view on that as a lawyer. No wonder Lord Gray of Contin said that it was "a useful provision". The Salmon Conservancy says:
the reversal of the onus of proof in the new regulations relating to possession has implications which go considerably beyond the salmon world".
The House should bear that in mind.
There is nothing in the Bill about the new powers for water bailiffs. Clause 19(1 )(f) refers to powers of entry and search. There are grave concerns about those powers. I warn the Government that if water bailiffs are to have more powers than the police, who are trained in adherence to legal measures and at least have been approved of as respectable before entering the force, the Government are concocting a recipe for real trouble. Some of the estates have been far from particular in their recruitment of water bailiffs. Clause 19(1)(f) provides that an order may
provide as to the exercise of powers of entry and search by water bailiffs and persons appointed by the Secretary of State under section 10(5) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951.
It seems to me that we are being sold a pig in a poke. Although the Minister said that there would be no change, the Secretary of State will give water bailiffs draconian powers.
This Bill is tailored for a sectional interest. The owners of the estates have real power. No marches or demonstrations for them — they intercede with the Government to defend their interests, and a Bill is provided for them. The Bill has nothing to do with conservation. It is offensive to natural justice. It is a landlords' charter with oppressive and despotic connotations.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I shall be brief, as much of what I wanted to say has been said. I, too, welcome the Bill, and especially the improvements made in another place.
It would be unfair to ignore the contribution made by the briefing and discussion organised by bodies representative of anglers rather than proprietors, such as the Salmon and Trout Association and the British Field Sports Society. It would be quite wrong to suppose that the Bill is a landlords' charter. It sets out to protect, and does protect, the interests of ordinary anglers as well as riparian proprietors.
I am grateful to the Government Front Bench in another place for the concessions that it made, although I hope that the Front Bench here will not think me churlish if I say that there is still room for improvement. There is no evident need to rush the Bill into Committee. It is clear that some of the insertions made with the Government's agreement lack the polish which a Committee would expect. If the Government's business managers feel no compelling need to take the Bill into Committee for one month, I do not think that any hon. Member would complain.
There is room for improvement in the extent to which the Bill contributes to conservation. I hope that we shall be able to establish that it is—for it is—a major contribution in the war against poaching north and south

of the border. That is good, but the Bill does not yet carry the seal of approval of those who want Britain to make a positive and conscious contribution to conserving the north Atlantic salmon. I hope that Ministers can remedy that deficiency at later stages of the Bill. Difficult as it may be to apply quotas to a mixed fishery such as we have in the United Kingdom, we must go a good deal further if we are to convince our partners in the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. The Bill must deal with poaching in England and Wales as well as in Scotland.
In Committee it must be shown to be a workable Bill, and clause 28 will need some fairly close attention, because it is merely sketched out at present. We do not know what machinery there is to be to operate a dealer licensing system in England and Wales, especially in those areas where the water authorities are not used to running game fisheries and where there is the additional complication of the ultimate prospect of privatisation, which raises in dealer licensing and in the operation of an effective bailiffing system all sorts of problems, about which we shall need to ask Ministers some fairly searching questions, and on which I must say we shall expect Wine fairly convincing answers.
Although it may be true that the Welsh water authority, for instance, would like to run a tagging scheme, which most of us would regard as impractical in any other part of the country, if it feels that it needs powers to operate that scheme, I hope that it will not hesitate to come to some member of the Committee with an amendment that can be tested in debate. A tagging scheme elsewhere in the United Kingdom will never be practical, for reasons that are fairly well established. Therefore, we must have a workable dealer licensing scheme. We must also have a system which ensures that magistrates courts understand the consequences of changing the onus of proof and will apply it fairly and effectively.
Other parts of the Bill need improvement with regard to England and Wales. The restriction on the use of nets by endorsees is something that might be usefully extended to the coastal areas of Wales, around the Towy, Usk and Dee. The Dee is one big fish trap nowadays. I am sure that the Welsh water authority would like to be able to do something about it. It needs powers to enable it to act. It could be given power to restrict the use of licensed nets. That is something that we can discuss in Committee.
Not surprisingly, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said very little in his speech on the amendment. It is all very well to complain that a salmon Bill is not an appropriate measure for dealing with the problems of the sea bass. I am glad that he has a grasp of that fact, but when he talks about adequate provision for anglers or for the wider public interest, I think he should tell the House what he means by referring to the urgent need to conserve salmon and other fish species. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill is insufficient, he should say what more he wants done. In particular, when he talks about protecting the environment of rivers and estuaries for the benefit of the whole nation's sporting, recreation and environmental interests, he should say whether those words mean anything or whether they are just waffle and padding.
Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I acquit him of knowing anything about angling. His words merely raise the spectre of the professional recreation propagandist. They bring to mind the study which the Middlesex polytechnic did for the Welsh water authority, where 49


per cent. of those interviewed were canoeists, who are by no means friends of the angler or likely to be interested in conserving salmon. That sort of waffle and the meaningless verbiage of the Opposition amendment would be best not pressed to a Division, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not do so.
I would rather see the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), who understands these matters and would make a useful contribution to the debate, serving on the Committee and making a constructive and nonpolitical approach to the problem, which is what I can promise will happen from these Benches, than have an ignorant absentee landlord on the Committee.

Mr. James Tinn (Redcar): One thing that should and I hope does unite us all is concern for the conservation of salmon. I know that that concern is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), with whom I have discussed my contribution this evening, and I am glad to see him with us. It is particularly shared by the north-east drift net fishermen, with whom I have discussed these matters and who have been so much maligned, perhaps not this evening but certainly in the other place.
In the course of a speech which was otherwise moderate and unexceptionable, my eyebrows rose more than slightly when the noble Lord Gray, on moving the Second Reading in another place, spoke about falling stocks, poaching and so on. He defended the Government against accusations of not doing sufficient in the Bill and pointed out that existing legislation had largely been ineffective. He said that it had stood the test of time.
despite the effects of such activities as high seas fishing and large-scale poaching".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 1986; Vol. 469, c. 991.]
To lump together those two activities, one entirely illegal and the other a historical and legal pastime, as though they were equally worthy of condemnation caused my eyebrows, and perhaps my blood pressure, to rise.
No one is more aware of the need for restrictions on poaching than the sea fishermen of the north-east coast. They brought home to me the point that simply banning night fishing would do nothing other than assist the poachers. Legitimate fishing can be stopped, but, without spending a great deal more on policing and protection, sea poachers will not be stopped.
Concern for the fishermen of the north-east emerged even more clearly from the speech—the first of many that touched on this—of the noble Lord Home of the Hirsel. He said—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Only Ministers in the House of Lords can be quoted here.

Mr. Tinn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the other place the point was explicitly made that northeast drift net fishing should be modified and phased out. Indeed, we heard that from the Labour Benches tonight. That justifies the concern that has been expressed to me.
The fishermen of the north-east coast accept the need for restrictions. They observe them and carry them out, but they want them to be effective and fair. Above all, they do not want them to be based on some assumption that

salmon have a nationality and carry passports, that because they happen to be born in a river north of the border they are Scottish, although they may then leave, swim halfway across the world seas and spend most of their life off Greenland or wherever before they come back. It must not be thought that if some English fisherman then dares to catch them he should look at their passport and pass them on with the best of good wishes to the Tweed, or wherever.
Accusations about the harmful effects on the North sea fisheries on the Scottish stocks do not seem to be based on any evidence. Dr. Derek Mills of the fishing and forestry department of Edinburgh university was until recently a critic of English fishermen, holding them responsible for declining stocks. Now he exonerates them and attributes declining stocks to a natural change in the fishing cycle. The fishermen south of the border accept the need for restrictions and will go along with them if they are equitable and fairly based. They should not be biased against those whose living and the living of their families over generations have depended on the fish and in favour of those who may have bought only time-sharing rights to Scottish rivers. The fishermen south of the border would not regard that as equitable.
I suggest to my Scottish colleagues, in all frankness and kindness, that, while they are entitled to look for ways of conserving the stocks, further action needs to be taken north of the border. They need to spend more than £400,000—I believe that that is a niggardly sum—on policing and protecting their own fish. A shoestring budget of £400,000 is totally inadequate to prevent the widespread netting of fish at night.
The towing of nets along the river is illegal, but two years ago when evidence in the form of a television video film was presented to a previous Minister, no action was taken. Something should be done about that sort of practice. I understand that the Scottish licence fee varies with the catch. This should be studied because, without wishing to be cynical, it encourages people to understate the size of their catch.
I draw the House's attention to the fact that the stock of salmon in English rivers is increasing and that of Scottish rivers is declining. Perhaps the fault lies with malpractice on Scottish rivers, and perhaps something more could be done—as we do at Kilder hatchery—to restock the rivers, which benefits all rivers.
It seems to me that the accusations against the northeast fishermen, where they are not based on pure self-interest, are due to the fact that the fishermen are too effective. They are effective, and that is what they are in the business for. The same accusation could be levelled against the West Indians, Australians or New Zealanders, yet nobody has proposed that we should phase them out of cricket because they are too effective.
Conservation should be the responsibility of us all. It should be continuing practice running from Greenland, the breeding place, and back to the birth place, the Scottish rivers and the English rivers in which many salmon are born. This is the problem, and it should be tackled. I am afraid that, if the views of many noble Lords in another place were given effect to, it would be the north-east fishermen who would be the endangered species and not the salmon.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I shall also concentrate on commercial fishing on the north-east coast.
I remind the House that this is a long-established industry that goes back for at least a century. It is legitimate, wellregulated and one of the best controlled of all fisheries. It makes an important contribution to the livelihood of the coastal areas in the north east, represented by the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn), myself and other hon. Members who may wish to take part in the debate. In North Shields and Cullercoats in my constituency employment in this industry is important. It is not just salmon fishing but fishing in general with which we are concerned, because the former cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the industry. It is a seasonal activity, and it would be ruinous for the other stocks in the area if the fishermen could not fish for salmon at that time of the year.
Ours is a much maligned industry that is unjustly blamed for anything that seems to go wrong in the rivers, especially in Scotland. It was blamed by Scottish speaker after speaker in the other place who was seeking to cut down on our fishing for the benefit of their anglers. I cannot see, if I were a salmon, why it would be any better to be caught by a hook than by the net. A salmon caught is a salmon out of the stock.

Mr. Bill Walker: is not the difference that in Scotland the rivers are being restocked in the hope that the salmon will come back, but someone else is ensuring that they do not come hack, and there is constant restocking without contribution from the north east?

Mr. Trotter: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point. I intended to mention the question of stocking on Northumbrian rivers and will now do so. In 1980, 252,000 new fish were put into the Northumbrian rivers, in 1981, 400,000, in 1982, 250,000, in 1983, 290,000, and in 1984, 286,500, which is a total of some one a half million over that four-year period. A large amount of new stock was put into the rivers in the north-east of England.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is not the difference between catching fish by net and catching them by rod that there must be a way to tell where they have come from? If fish are caught in a river, it makes the management of stocks in that river easier. Therefore, the conservation of the species is more possible.

Mr. Trotter: My point is that, in looking at the future of the salmon fishing stocks, we should look at all aspects of it, and that includes the numbers that are caught and killed on the rivers by line and rod fishermen. One noble lord said in debate that after 50 years' experience of fishing in over 50 rivers, he had noticed that the deadliness of the line and rod was a great deal more than it used to be. He referred to much more clever baits, and from what he said monofilament is as deadly when used by rod fishermen as it is when used by net fishermen.
We already have considerable restrictions on commercial fishing on the north-east coast. The number of licences has fallen from 200 in 1970 to 120. We have already heard that restrictions are to be placed on who can operate the boats—no longer will the endorsee of a licence be able to go out on his own without the licensee. There has long been a closed season, and now the restrictions on weekend fishing are to be tightened up and there is to be a significant eight-hour ban at night. A great deal is being asked of the north-east coast fishermen, and I believe that they will accept the restrictions—reluctantly, but as something

with which they will have to put up. Enough is enough, and we should not further penalise those carrying on a legitimate and important commercial activity.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that the poaching in the Tweed may be due to the fact that no legalised fishing is taking place there, and there are no legalised fishermen to report poachers. On the rest of the north-east coast the licences certainly act as very effective policemen in the prevention of illegal fishing. Nobody knows how many fish are caught illegally off the Scottish coast, but it is clear that poaching there is very great. Indeed, it has been said that the poaching in Scotland is on a systematic, continuous and massive scale. It is estimated that the illegal catch in Scottish waters is twice as great as the whole of the licensed catch in the north-east. That certainly needs further inquiry, investigation and action.
I find it hard to understand how it was that in the lengthy debate in the other place there was no reference to the number of fish being caught by the commercial fishermen in Scotland. When I look at the figures for the relative catches, as an accountant, that seems to me to be an astonishing omission. There has been a tremendous amount of comment about the amount of salmon caught off the north-east coast of England, but we hear nothing about the far greater amount caught off the north-east coast of Scotland. They do not catch the fish in the same way there, as they do not go out in boats like our English fishermen. They catch the salmon in nets set out from the shore, but the effect is just the same for the salmon. Indeed, it is a great deal worse for the salmon, as many of these nets are set not in the sea but across the mouths of the rivers and the estuaries; and the fish have far less chance of escaping from that form of netting than they do in the North sea.
The figures for this shore-based commercial fishing on the east coast of Scotland make very interesting reading. The rod and line fishermen in Scotland caught 65,000 salmon in 1982 and in that year the north-east commercial fishermen caught 50,000 salmon. The interesting point is that the Scottish commercial fishermen caught no fewer than 271,000 salmon. We heard nothing about this huge catch from the Scotsmen in the other place, who were so keen to attack the English fishermen, yet it is clearly by far the biggest problem facing the river fishermen in Scotland. How can they overlook that activity in their own area when they complain all the time about ours?
I welcome an inquiry into the salmon industry's future and it is sensible that the proposal in clause 33 to prepare such a report includes the activity off the north-east coast of Scotland. I will in due course read the conclusions of that report with a great deal of interest.
Reference has been made to the effect that seals have on salmon fishing. Of course, it is difficult to estimate how much fish is poached, and it is even more difficult to estimate how much salmon is eaten by the seals. One can estimate what an average seal eats in total fish in a year, but it must be hard to analyse its diet between the different types of fish that it eats. It must, however, be true that many salmon end their days as a meal, not as a tasty dish on a table, but inside a seal. The seal population is very large. There is an estimate that the seal population off the Fame Islands off the Northumbrian coast is some 8,010. That seems to be a remarkably precise estimate. Perhaps we might settle for an estimate of 8,000. It has been estimated that those 8,000 seals eat 15,930 tons of fish in


a year—again surprisingly accurate—let us say 16,000 tons is consumed. That figure ties up with the estimate made by the hon. Member for Redcar of two tons of fish a year per seal. That is a very large amount of fish, when we bear in mind that the total salmon catch in a year in Scotland, by all means, is about 1,000 tons. We should not overlook the effect that the large number of seals has on the salmon fishing and the Government must give attention to this problem.
I have referred to the annual stocking of the rivers in the north-east of England with large numbers of fish. Hundreds of thousands of fish have been added to those rivers each year and many have been the contributions made by the north-east fishermen.
In conclusion, I should like to refer to comments made to me in correspondence by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) when he was the Minister responsible for fisheries in England and Wales. Last year my right hon. Friend said in a letter to me that a report prepared for his Department showed that—
the total effect on Scottish East Coast catches in 1977 was only about 6·4 per cent. … the effect on total spawning stocks in these Scottish waters would probably be even less than this figure.
In another letter sent to me at about the same time, my right hon. Friend said he had
seen nothing to support the statement that the North East drift net fishery is putting at risk the survival of the Scottish East-coast salmon industry or of the salmon themselves.
In my judgment, there is a real threat facing the commercial salmon fisherman as a result of the dramatic explosion in the production of salmon by fish farming. Obviously, if the price of salmon at the counter goes down that will effect the livelihood of the commercial fishermen and the huge increases in production are only likely to reduce the price. In 1985, 7,000 tonnes of salmon were produced by fish farming, whereas in Scotland the whole catch that year was about 1,000 tonnes. In other words, seven times as much was produced from fish farming, and that was twice as much as was produced the previous year. Estimates made by one of my noble Friends in his ministerial capacity show that that figure could double again in the next two years to 14,000 tonnes. That will pose a considerable problem for the Northumbrian commercial salmon fishermen, who do not need in addition to be unfairly treated as a result of pressure from Scotland.
There is a great tradition of commercial salmon fishing on the north-east coast, and the hardy fishermen there earn their living by their hard work often in atrocious conditions. These hardworking men deserve to be allowed to continue in that tradition.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The debate has been busier and longer tha most hon. Members expected. I have spent several days recently sitting through debates about the defence of the realm, but it seems that more interest is generated in the defence of the salmon and salmon fishing interests than in our national defence. Certainly the time that the debates took in the other place suggests that it is a major preoccupation there.
The Minister said that the Bill had three aims: the modernisation and improvement of administrative

arrangements, the introduction of greater flexibility into salmon fishing regulations, and the inclusion of further measures to combat poaching. I have had representations from the Forth district board in Scotland, and I know that they have been made on an all-party basis to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who has the upper reaches of the river in his constituency.
The board's fundamental misgiving is the glaring omission from the Bill of adequate financial provision to secure its objectives. Certainly the imposition on all management boards of new responsibilities without adequate funding will place further burdens on ratepayers who must meet the cost of the boards. In this case the ratepayers are the licensees—the people who own the fishing rights. Some of them are not landlords but merely tenants and people of modest means who find it increasingly difficult to meet the demands, especially after the revaluation botch-up which has created considerable difficulties for some of my constituents who are working fishermen, not landed aristocrats.
Some misgivings have been expressed about the lack of definition of the right to participate in the boards. There is no qualification for those with previous convictions. They are not debarred from participating in the fishing management boards. There is no scrutiny. Providing an individual owns the land or is a tenant, he can, by one of the means identified by the Minister, achieve membership of a board. I hope that that matter will be examined in Committee. I doubt whether I can participate in the Committee debates, and I wish to make it clear, in case any Labour Whips are around, that I am not interested in attending that stage of the proceedings. I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) that once the Whips are on the move it is difficult to get them off one's back.
I do not propose to offer the Whips the flexibility which the Bill hopes to achieve on the issue of the seasons. It has been put to me by fishermen in my constituency that the opportunity to fish for salmon in February 1986 has been rather empty because of the inclemency of the weather. It may be that on the basis of experience this year we shall be able to move the dates from February to March and from August to September. I do not know how that would meet the demands of conservation, but some of the fisherman of my area feel that it would certainly be of assistance for fishing on the Forth.
Much has been made of the matter of poaching. The quotation from The Guardian today has been amply used concerning the tremendous level of poaching on the Tweed and the evidence that the poaching is organised crime with large sums involved. As I have said, it seems that the attention of the authorities has been directed towards the large poacher and is moving away from the small poacher. If that is the case, we shall have to wait and see. However, many of us feel that the enthusiasm and tenacity of the bailiffs in pursuing all poachers has been such that any small-time poacher who thinks that he will have an easy ride in the future is probably kidding himself and will have an unhappy awakening, no matter how sentimentally or affectionately we may view them.
We have had a discussion on nets, and a point which may be for the consideration of the Committee is the sale of nets. Much is made of the type of net, but I should have thought that a closer examination could be made of the people who seek to purchase nets. The display of a licence or the exposure of some form of bona fides should be made


to the seller or manufacturer of nets. That would go some way towards preventing nets from getting into the hands of poachers.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because it will save me making a contribution. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there have been instances in the Stirling area of nets which have been confiscated by the sheriff court from poachers being resold by the sheriff clerk at a discount price although they were illegal drift nets?

Mr. O'Neill: There is a case in that instance for the destruction of the nets. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the defrayal of any tax imposition, but we must welcome small conversions, whatever form they take and on whatever occasions they arise. We must be grateful for the small mercy that we have seen a change in the hon. Gentleman's attitude at least on this form of privatisation. There ought to be closer scrutiny of the sale and destruction of confiscated nets. It would be helpful if that matter was explored in Committee.
Anxieties have been expressed on both sides of the House about many of the powers which have been vested not only in the Secretary of State but in the bailiffs. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) developed that helpfully for all concerned. It is important that, if we are to increase the rights and responsibilities of bailiffs, we should make provision for better training for them. If they are to appear in court and their testimony is to be afforded greater weight than in the past, those individuals should be adequately equipped and trained to state their case. If their evidence is based on what can only be regarded in Scottish terms as minimal corroboration, even greater responsibility must rest on them. The authority with which they speak can only be enhanced if they have adequate training. A policeman who goes into the witness box to give evidence is better trained and equipped for his responsibilities than many of the bailiffs in Scotland. [n some areas, bailiffs have been appointed simply because no one else would do the job. Their payment is not adequate. All in all, it is a very casual arrangement.
The Bill is viewed by the Opposition with some suspicion. We recognise the need for it, but we are always suspicious when the vested interests which the Government nakedly and openly represent greet legislation with the enthusiasm that this legislation received in the other place. We should remind ourselves that the main purpose of the Bill is to arrest the decline in stock and to ensure that we can prove to other countries where we are seeking quotas that we can allow the fish to swim to our waters and then can apply effective conservation methods. If we can ensure that this legislation achieves those aims, we shall have gone some way towards helping those people such as my constituents who eke out a modest income by catching fish in rivers such as the Forth.
Many of us still have some misgivings about the nature of the organisation, the unrepresentative arrangements for the fishing boards and the possible threats posed to civil liberties if the full powers afforded by the Bill are exercised in other than a sparing and sensitive way.
It is 21 years since Hunter was asked to examine this matter. A considerable time has elapsed before the legislation reached this stage. Even if we have to wait another 100 years, I extend my good will to Committee

members. I hope that they ensure that the improvements I have suggested are embodied in the form which I think everyone wants.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has given a cautious welcome to the Bill. I assume that the Labour Front Bench will now drop its opposition. [Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry that the reason that persuaded the hon. Member for Clackmannan has not yet affected his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench. What a shame.
In contrast, I should like to congratulate my colleagues on the Front Bench on the way in which they have presented the Bill. I congratulate the Government on the fact that they have agreed to a number of amendments in another place which have strengthened the Bill. However, I should like to emphasise strongly that there is a great deal of hostility to the idea that the Bill should be considered in Committee before the many people outside the House and hon. Members have time to consider the amendments made by the other place.
As many of us have said, this is possibly the last occasion on which we shall be able to consider a Bill of this kind. It would be a shame to dissipate the good will which my hon. Friends have acquired merely to suit the convenience of the party managers. I suspect that, if any people are pressing for early consideration of the legislation, it is them.
I particularly welcome the Government's decision to review the effects of north-east coast drift netting and netting in Scottish and estuarial waters. The more I listen to the debate the more I realise how wise the Government are to take those two controversial issues together and so, I hope, avoid a clash between north and south of the border.
I also hope that the evidence that we shall amass will make us realise that there must be give in the north-east and in the estuarial waters. We cannot go on in the way we have been, in the light of the figures that have been given. It is clear that action must be taken, but it must be taken on a fair basis, and I welcome, for example, the extension of dealer licensing to England and Wales. Whale it may be said that the Bill does not go far enough, what has been done is based on common sense principles.
I was concerned when the Minister referred—such references have been made in the past—to what he believed to be facts which, in his judgment, did not support the view expressed by hon. Members on both sides that a serious problem existed with Atlantic salmon.
The Minister argued that compared with statistics of 30 years ago, there were probably no fewer salmon in our waters today. He said that we were merely in a cyclical situation. One can play with the figures, and one must examine closely what proportion is salmon and what proportion is grilse. No ghillie I have met would subscribe to the view that things have not changed. Most believe that the situation has deteriorated.

Mr. Bill Walker: More people are fishing.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend is right, but world catches of Atlantic salmon, as the Salmon and Trout Association reports, have declined—from 10,400 tonnes in 1967 to 5,400 tonnes in 1984—and Scottish


catches have dropped by 50 per cent. in the last 25 years. That, according to the salmon conservancy experts, clearly shows a crisis of stock decline.
We are not the sole judges of the situation. There is worldwide concern. Hence the setting up of NASCO, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservancy Organisation, and the attitude of the Americans and Canadians to what they believe to be a serious situation. Little wonder that the Atlantic Salmon Trust, which is not prone to exaggeration, said:
It is not at all clear that Whitehall fully understands the new dimensions of the world salmon situation yet … through the EEC being a signatory … the United Kingdom has a clear responsibility.
The Canadian publication of 1984, "Atlantic Salmon Management Plan: Major Elements", stated:
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans will continue to seek a reduction in the quota for the West Greenland salmon fishery … Canada will not reduce its interception of salmon bound for United States waters unless of course Greenland reduces the amount of salmon reaching Canadian waters.
The Danes have said that they will not reduce Greenland fishing quotas, which have already been reduced, until the United Kingdom reduces its drift netting in England and Wales and its activities in the estuarial waters of Scotland.
For those reasons, the Minister's remark that we should not exaggerate these matters was not convincing. Even if we found it convincing, no other country would. We are all very concerned. It is little wonder, therefore, that people ask the Government to make more radical proposals.
I shall make a few suggestions which ought to convince the British people and the people of other countries that we are serious about salmon conservation. If there is to be a review of north-east drift netting and Scottish estuarial netting, why cannot it be extended to a review of the whole of British waters? It is not just a north-east or a Scottish estuarial matter. If one of the hon. Members with a Welsh constituency catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will probably emphasise that point.
If we cannot persuade the Government to extend the review, I hope that the wording of the clause which provides for a limited review will be extended to take into account the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison): that we are not just concerned with reviewing whether a sufficient number of salmon return to spawn in rivers, although that is fundamental to the Bill, but that note should be taken of the suggestion that was made in another place that "sufficient" is too vague a word and that we must be much more concerned about ensuring that the optimum number of salmon return to the rivers to spawn.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced, much to our pleasure, on 7 November 1985 the standardisation of a weekly close for nets of 60 hours in the north-east drift net fishery. That standardisation ought to be extended throughout Great Britain. The Scottish close time is now from midday on Saturday to 6 am on Monday, a total of only 42 hours. Many hon. Members wish that period to be further extended. The Salmon Conservation Group argues that the weekly close time for nets must be increased to 72 hours and that the annual close time for nets must be increased to 212 days. I think that a total of 168 days is provided for in the Bill. The group makes the point that

reduced netting would leave more salmon in the rivers. That is true, but it is no part of my case to try to put rods men against nets men. If we are to have a national salmon conservation policy, we must extend the closed periods and make them applicable throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
There is also the question of netting at low water or in periods of drought. I hope that the Government will take powers to allow the restriction of netting in periods of drought. I have spoken to people who have personal experience of it and I saw the effects of netting last year in very poor drought conditions. It puts the salmon at tremendous risk.
The Government say that the water authorities have provided no evidence and that they have not yet approached the Government. That may be so, but that is not the same as saying that the evidence does not exist. We know that estuarial conditions vary, as do the conditions in one river compared with another. The Spey, for example, has no estuary. There is a hole in the shingle; that is where the fish go. When the water is low, the fish are not vulnerable to netting.
I hope that the Government will ask the water authorities to co-operate and tell us what is the effect of low water in their estuaries. The Salmon and Trout Association informs us that at least one water authority has been able to show a relationship between catches by rod and nets over a 30–year period. It informs us that in normal times it is of the order of one rod-caught salmon to three net-caught salmon. In drought years the ratio went up to between six and 11 net-caught salmon for each salmon caught by rod. I am glad to note that the association will be seeking further data. If it is proved, as I believe it will be, that persistent drought conditions have a serious effect on salmon stocks, the Government should have ready in hand in the legislation power to lay before Parliament measures which will permit water authorities or district salmon fishing boards to introduce restrictions on salmon netting operations in periods of low water flow in rivers and estuaries.
I could make other points, but those are the ones that particularly concern me. If the Government give enough time to collect the voices before going into Committee and pay heed to some of the points that have been made on both sides of the House, we can expect the Bill to be substantially improved.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The desire to speak diminishes as the hour approaches midnight, so I shall be brief. I virtually took a degree on the Hunter report. I came into office about a year and half after it had been published. Nothing had been done about it, and my first task was to spend a long time on it. I produced two solutions, one of which did not get past my immediate lord and master; the other was thrown out by a Cabinet Sub-Committee. I might have rescued it had we not lost the election in 1970, but that is by the way.
My solutions had very little connection with what is propounded in the Bill. Furthermore, there is very little in the Bill that will be of lasting benefit to the salmon fisheries. There is little in it about an analysis of and a response to the problems which the salmon fishing industry faces on the netting side or on the angling side. There is no sense of a scientific approach on conservation or anything like that.
The Bill will give further powers to water bailiffs. As the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said, it is a Bill to give fresh reasons for sending people to Botany Bay. The proposals are a major backward step. I am delighted that my party has put forward a reasoned amendment. I regret that we did not simply oppose the Bill.
The legal implications of the Bill are curious. It is not guilt, or suspicion of guilt, that leads to an offence, but it is the fact of suspicion that is of itself the offence. That has been referred to by Lord Denning among others. In another place Lord Mishcon described what might happen to a commercial traveller who in good faith bought three salmon on a quayside at Lochinver. He said that the salmon might have gill marks which would not be recognised by the commercial traveller, who would not know whether they had been taken illegally. All that he could do would be to go into the witness box to show that the circumstances did not give rise to suspicion. It will be a new offence.
I am told that in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 there is a similar offence in relation to badgers, but that is different. In that case, at least one has to be seen in the act of digging. In this Bill, one does not have to be seen in the act of fishing. New section 7A in clause 21 says:
(1) A person who—

(a) is in possession of salmon and believes; or
(b) is in possession of salmon in circumstances in which it would be reasonable for him to suspect,

that a relevant offence has at any time been committed in relation to the salmon shall be guilty of an offence
If someone felt that circumstances in which he procured the salmon involved an offence, that in itself would be the guilt. It is an extraordinary proposition, especially in Scotland, where the basic security of corroboration that we have had under Scottish law is being thrown out of the window. Without corroboration, and in the light of suspicious circumstances, a man is ipso facto found guilty. It is extraordinary that such a provision should be passing through the House at the witching hour of 11.59 pm. As if that were not bad enough in Scotland, the provision has been extended to England. Clause 29 applies to England and it reads:
a person shall be guilty of an offence"—
it reads like the address of a 17th century Scottish preacher—
if, at a time when he believes or it would be reasonable for him to suspect"—
not that he suspects, for it is deemed that he should have been reasonable enough to have suspected—
that a relevant offence has at any time been committed"—
no particular offence is specified; there is no objectivity and no precision. There is no specificity about the charge—
in relation to any salmon, he receives the salmon
he is guilty.
There is the lovely provision in subsection (3), which reads:
It shall be immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1) that a person's belief or the grounds for suspicion relate neither specifically to a particular offence that has been committed nor exclusively to a relevant offence or to relevant offences".
There is nothing that is particular. However,
it shall be a defence in proceedings for an offence under this section to show that no relevant offence had in fact been committed in relation to the salmon in question.

What kind of law is it that provides that if a man is proved to be innocent he shall be deemed to be innocent? We are faced with an incredible proposition, and yet it has been placed solemnly before us.
We know what the salmon means in Scotland, and especially in the highlands. The salmon means privilege. It has meant privilege, and it has been maintained for the purpose of privilege, and the purpose of the Bill is to maintain that privilege. That is what it is all about in the highlands, where King Salmon still rules. There is more power applied to, more prosecution of and more time spent on the odd fellow who picks the odd salmon out of a local river than there is in trying to create jobs for our people in the highlands.
It is a bad Bill and if we cannot see our way to voting against it, at least we shall vote for the reasoned amendment. I was born on the banks of the Helmsdale river, one of the best salmon rivers in Scotland. I was born alongside crofters who had been pushed down the glen in the clearances. They were not allowed to fish the river. If they had done so, we know what would have happened to them.
We know about the problems that arise from the existence of new gangs, which have been described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). We know that they possess dynamite and cyanide, and my right hon. Friend suggested that they are involved in drug abuse. If that is so, these matters should not be left to a private security force. We have a police force to deal with that sort of crime. The community interest has not featured on one page of the Bill. Instead, the Bill has been designed to meet private interests. I believe that it will fail. The right solution is to take the waters under community control and community direction, in the interests of the community. That is the answer.

Mr. Bill Walker: What about poaching?

Mr. Buchan: We shall prevent poaching by community action. Legislation of this sort almost turns a national pastime into a national duty. There is a difference between that and the sort of poaching that should be prevented by community control. I wish that the Bill were being opposed, but at least we shall have the opportunity of voting for the reasoned amendment.

Sir Michael Shaw (Scarborough): I am chairing a Committee and I had not expected to be able to participate in the debate. I am rather surprised but grateful to have the opportunity to do so. My local fishermen, with whom I spoke over the weekend, asked me to voice their views. They feel that they are being oppressed and that the drift netters, along with others in the north-east, are being gradually squeezed out. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, an English Minister—I trust that an English shadow Minister will reply to the debate from the Opposition Front Bench, as English matters are involved —gave an assurance that that is not so.
The Minister has visited Scarborough and Whitby in the past 10 days. I know that his visit was much appreciated. He will have learned from my drift netters their deep concern about the legislation.
I want to deal with just two points. I shall deal first of all with the drift netters, and then with poaching.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) talked much about the river Esk, which is virtually all in my constituency. He was very inaccurate in one respect. I am sorry that he is not here, but he has taken part in the debate so I feel justified in saying this. He claims that the drift netters as well as poachers off the mouth of the river Esk, have caused the great scarcity of salmon in that river.
I spoke of this matter in some detail in the debate on 28 October last. I shall not go over it all again, save to say this. The Yorkshire river Esk is a real example of what I believe is happening in the rest of the rivers, especially in Scottish rivers.
The management of the river Esk, the riparian owners, the harbour authorities and the drift netters themselves are organised to keep the salmon stocks high. They are all making a contribution. There is no rivalry. The riparian owners accept the fact that salmon caught by the drift netters are not going into the river Esk.
What does this mean? It means that the salmon are not reaching the higher reaches of the river Esk. They are disappearing lower down towards the mouth, for the very reason mentioned by the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central. They are being poached commercially by professional gangs. Large numbers are being taken. That is the source of the problem. I am convinced that the same circumstances apply to the Scottish rivers.
It is said that there will be a review in three years' time. If that review takes place I hope that all the facts will be brought out, but I fear that the main fact will not be brought out. How many fish have been poached at the source of the rivers? That is the key question. I do not know how my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will get this information, but those figures are vital so that we may make a meaningful comparison.
I believe that my own drift netters are justified in their fears. They need to have those fears allayed. Poaching is done in rivers, estuaries and seas. Often, the netters pay large sums in licence fees. They go fishing, and alongside them are people who have not paid anything. The netters go off to other fishing areas because their time is up. There, they see illegal fishing. Apparently, nothing is being done. I believe that if we are not careful we shall see the demise of drift netting and then the continuing rundown of salmon stocks. We must tackle the real problem of poaching.
I believe that if, in order to home in on the poachers, we have first quite unnecessarily to get rid of the licensed net fishers, that would be a tragedy and a gross injustice to those small fishermen who have been fishing for generations.
It would be tragic if a drift netter were not allowed to pass on his rights to the crew man whom he had brought up almost as his own child. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider the matter carefully, to go for the poaching and to uphold the rights of licensed drift net fishermen.

Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor): I wish to speak briefly and mainly about Welsh interests.
I was brought up on a tributary of the River Wye which has been a playground of the privileged. It has been

extremely difficult for people who live in the area to get access to the river. One of the problems that we are grappling with tonight is that many fishermen would like to fish our rivers, but cannot get access to them. If they could gain access, I believe that there would be far less poaching. We cannot achieve absolute access for everyone as that would defeat conservation measures, but there should be more access for ordinary people in the area. I have had the privilege to fish the Wye only twice, although I was brought up in the area and am a keen fisherman.
I declare an interest as a member of Aberystwyth angling association, which owns 12 miles of river. Many people gain access to the river, which is run in the best interest of the fishery. There is quite effective poacher control by members of the association. That is the way forward. Access has not been discussed adequately today.
Conservation of salmon stocks is extremely important. More resources must be devoted to increasing fish stocks by water authorities, even if they are privatised. The problem of poaching varies between different parts of the country. There is fairly innocent poaching in some parts of the country, but in others, such as my part of Wales, there is organised poaching on what I would describe as an industrial scale. It is almost impossible for water bailiffs to tackle the gangs involved. We must, however, protect our fisheries from this assault which depletes our salmon stocks.
I should have liked to have discussed many other matters such as control of netting, especially around Greenland, on an international scale. I do not want to prolong the debate, but there are insufficient conservation measures in the Bill and access is not dealt with properly. Control of the disposal of salmon has, however, been improved in England and Wales.
We in Wales regard salmon tagging as extremely important and I hope that we can show a lead to the rest of Britain in that respect.

Mr. Bill Walker: That I am last to speak in the debate I suppose is to be expected because the largest and longest river for salmon fishing in Scotland is in my constituency. Indeed, it is probably one of the most important rivers in the world for salmon fishing.
It is not the fact that salmon does not come up the river but what happens if the salmon does not come up the river that is important. I was interested in what was said by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). They seemed to suggest that salmon fishing was the sport of the gentry, the well-off and the privileged. That is nonsense. If they come to the river Tay, to any of the fishing fleets on the Tay or to any of the hotels in which fishermen are to be found, they will find miners and people from all walks of life because fishing is one of the most popular sports. That is what makes it important to Scotland —the fact that it is popular and that it is worth between £150 million and £200 million to the Scottish economy.
More importantly, directly and indirectly it employs about 30,000 people. If we were debating a matter to do with an industry where 30,000 jobs were at risk, we would quite happily be prepared to sit until 12.15 in the morning. That is what we should be doing this evening. That is what the debate is about—what is happening to the rural economy in Scotland.
To find out why the salmon are not coming up the rivers in the numbers that they previously did, we have to bear in mind that there are many more people now fishing for salmon in all areas—drift netting, estuarial netting and the rod fishermen. There are many more rod fishermen fishing Scotland's rivers today. That is certainly true of the Tay, although many of the best rod fishing fleets on the Tay are unlet for the spring season thus far. I find that very worrying. Many jobs in my constituency are at risk. Tourism is the largest employer in north Tayside. If, indeed, there is another season when the fishing is not successful, there will be many fewer jobs in north Tayside. We have to find the answers.
I welcome the Bill. I believe that it does not go far enough, but that will not surprise my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. For any hon. Member who is interested, may I say that I have never fished for salmon in my life. I know nothing about it other than what I have been told by those in my constituency who are concerned about the impact on jobs. I am surprised to observe that Opposition Members find it fascinating and funny that I have not fished. They have a habit of thinking that if one represents a Conservative constituency one is part of an elite which enjoys all these different activities. Unlike the hon. Member for East Lothian, I was not born into that privilege. I won the privilege in an election—indeed, in two elections. I have not yet taken the opportunity to indulge in fishing for salmon.
My concern is that in the north-east of England it is not a question of fishermen fishing by the traditional methods; they are not. If they were, the probability is that their catches would be the same as they were by the old traditional methods.
We have banned monofilament nets, properly, in my view. I should like this ban to be extended to England. This is equally true in the case of estuarial netting. [Interruption.] Again, Opposition Front Bench Members find that funny. Thirty thousands jobs are not funny. I think that this is one of the most important debates we have had this year on the subject of jobs. It is more important than many of our other debates because these are real jobs that could go on for ever if we look after the resource that provide them—the salmon.
The debate is about looking after, caring for and protecting that resource to make sure that it continues. Nature has provided it; man is destroying it. We must consider how to deal with it.
It is also important that we should examine estuarial netting as carefully as we intend to examine north-east coast netting. I welcome the provisions in the Bill that take care of that. However, the period that we are looking at is a bit too long. I should like to see that shortened so that some decisions could be made earlier.
I welcome the Bill and the fact that rod fishing should be incorporated into any estimate of the river resources and just how many salmon are being caught legitimately.
I also welcome the measures to deal in some respects —it is only in some respects—with poaching. Poaching is a real problem. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) say that poaching did not occur in his constituency. I have heard it spoken about there, so I can only presume that either those who speak about it do not know what they are talking about or that the right hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about. I shall leave it to the House to decide who is right about that.
The Bill is long overdue. We in Scotland welcome it. Those of us who are concerned with jobs in Scotland hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will accept some more reasoned amendments, just as they have done in the other place, because the Bill could be improved substantially so that when it becomes an Act it will make a positive contribution to the continuation of the salmon in Scottish rivers.

Mr. Home Robertson: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply briefly to the debate. It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to go on about employment in Scotland so soon after his extraordinary antics on the subject of employment in the steel industry in Scotland.
I want to stress to those hon. Members who have suggested that it is the Opposition's intention to vote against the Bill on Second Reading that that is not so, because we do not want to obstruct the genuine conservation elements within the Bill. Nevertheless, it is our intention to seek to divide the House on our reasoned amendment and I have explained the reason for that. We have serious misgivings about the constitution of the district salmon boards in Scotland and about the manner of appointment of water bailiffs in Scotland. The fundamental flaw in the Bill is that it is a landlords' Bill. That is why it will fail, and that is why we intend to press our amendment to a Division.
Many interesting, detailed points have been raised, many of which involve complicated issues. The Standing Committee which considers the Bill could perhaps do with some specialist advice on the detailed points that have been referred to, and I wonder what the Minister of State's reaction would be to the suggestion that the Special Standing Committee procedure should be applied to the Bill.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is fond of the expression "It is a bit rich". It is a bit rich that a Bill which deals with a great deal of interest in the north-east of England should have been treated by the Opposition to a monopoly by Scottish shadow Ministers. We have heard tonight an attitude towards the Bill which is frivolous and peculiar. It is peculiar that twice we have heard a representative of a particular group in Scotland attack a Bill as if it were concerned only to entrench present rights. The purpose of the Bill is to extend and improve the conservation measures with which we all ought to be concerned.
It was odd that the hon. Member for East Lothian managed to turn something which ought to have had all-party support into a party political debate. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did this, too, although it was quite difficult to do so. The speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian was typical of him, and he again raised all the old arguments about landlordism. We know why he did it—it is his annual speech of re-selection. Every year the hon. Member has to come up with something to show the selectors that he is not what he seems to be, and he chose today to do his Militant rain dance.
The hon. Member for East Lothian moved what he delicately refers to as a reasoned amendment. If it is a reasoned amendment, his explanation of logic leaves most


of us cold. He has put forward views about the Bill but has not dealt with the central part. The central part of the Bill is to make it possible so to regulate the taking of salmon as to enable us to protect the species for the benefit of all who have a right to them. Dealing with poachers is central to the whole issue. As has been said by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, unless one can control the poaching of salmon one is not able to have a conservation policy. We have shown that it is impossible, under the present structure of the law, to control poachers. For that reason, we have changed the basis upon which prosecutions may be brought.
I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who suggested that people would be arrested on suspicion. There is no question of being arrested on suspicion. It is rather a question of being brought into court in such circumstances that any reasonable person would realise that the salmon which had been taken was likely to have been poached. The hon. Member's example gave his case away. Of course it is true that a man who has no knowledge of the effect of a gill net would not be brought into court because he would not be able, reasonably, to have suspected that a particular salmon had been taken in that way. If the man was regularly dealing in salmon and therefore knew a great deal about salmon, it might be reasonable to suggest that he ought to know that salmon bearing particular marks had been taken in that way and would have been taken illegally. In that case he ought to be taken to court.
If Opposition Members do not like that, perhaps they can find an alternative way of dealing with the problem. Some of them cast aside poaching as if it were unimportant when they know that it is now a major industry and a professional activity carried out by people who are not averse to using extreme forms of violence. These people are constantly destroying a resource which ought to be available to a range of people, both netsmen and rodsmen. The Opposition do their case no good by pretending that one can merely cast poaching aside.
I agreed heartily with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) when he pointed out the importance of the employment issues. It is not for Opposition Members to suggest that we should not be spending this time on a matter which affects the livelihood of many people. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that to suggest that it affects people employed in Scotland is not a proper answer. He said that the Bill was bad for the Scottish people, but there are many other people in this industry and many of them are in the north-east of England and elsewhere. The Bill ought to meet the needs of everyone. That is why we are seeking to ensure that the measures that we take are fair to all the legitimate interests.
We have been tough on the north-east drift fisheries. From now on, those who have a licence will have to be present in the boat while the fishing is taking place. The longest period of weekend closing—longer than is the case in estuarial netting—will now take place. There will not be drift net fishing at night, and all ways of further controlling what is an already controlled fishery will be insisted on. All this will be brought into play, and we shall be able to see at the end of three years whether it has had an effect.
However, all this is not possible if we look only at part of the pattern—say, 35 per cent. We must look at the whole of the netting pattern, and it would be wrong to avoid doing so. That is why we are reviewing the whole lot. Thereafter, we can make reasonable decisions about what to do.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed kindly gave way to me when he was speaking about the Government's intentions. As I pointed out then, it would be preposterous to say in advance of the review that we would phase out the north-east fishery, just as it would be if we said that we wanted to phase out the estuarial netsmen or the rodsmen. It would be improper to do so, because the purpose of the review is to assess how best to protect this resource for all those who have a historic and reasonable right of access to a legitimate employment, or connection with it.
We shall not prejudge what will happen in the review. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was fair to say that the review will suggest that some of the more extreme attacks on the north-east will probably be shown to be without foundation. However, we must take this matter seriously, which is possible only if we are able to deal with the problem of poaching at the same time. I agree with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies that there is a problem in being able to check the amount of fish that are taken, because if so much is taken by poaching the figures will not tie up. Goods arrive in Billingsgate that do not fit in with the figures of what is produced legally. Therefore, the control of the poacher is crucial to the success of what we are trying to do.
It is not good enough for Labour Members to have a so-called reasoned amendment and not face the issue. We cannot deal with this matter unless we are prepared to deal with poaching. We cannot deal with poaching unless we change the nature of the evidence. I hope that some of the right hon. and hon. Friends of the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) will remind him that he has a responsibility to the jobs of the people of the north-east as well as to those whose case he put forward. I am impressed by the way that Members who represent Scottish interests are prepared to watch the work and to take the evidence of the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) suggested that we should include rodsmen in the review, but he will, I think, agree that we are asking for a major investigation of the netting in both Scotland and England. That is a sufficiently large task to do effectively, and I wonder whether it would be sensible to extend it, although we could look at this matter.
Like others, my hon. Friend spoke about seals, which is now a matter at which it is almost impossible to look objectively because of the pressure outside. We cannot ignore it, but I hope that the investigation being carried out by my Department and the Scottish Office will soon produce an outcome.
I must take issue with the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) on his endorsement of poaching. His view of the structure of Scotland is somewhat out of date. The right hon. Member spoke about an attitude to Scotland which might have been acceptable in a barn-storming meeting 50 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman's comments about poaching, as if it was a vague thing committed by a nice chap who did not take more than one salmon from time to time, were part of the


fairy tales which are so much a part of Scottish nationalism. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) rightly suggested that we must look at the situation most carefully. He related the problems of the machinery and the way that the water authorities will deal with the problem if those bodies take over that responsibility.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking would expect me to say a few words about dealer licensing. Dealer licensing in England and Wales is more difficult than it is in Scotland because we do not have the means that exist in Scotland under the Scottish form of local government. We are discussing with the water authorities whether they would be the right means of enforcement and licensing. They would obviously be the most sensible bodies to carry out such duties and they have said that they are willing to consider it.
We would envisage the licensing scheme in England and Wales as being extensive and it would deal with the vast majority of transactions. That would mean that many people who are now used to buying their salmon perfectly legally—perhaps at the back door of a hotel—will in future have to buy from a licensed dealer. That is necessary if we are to deal with poaching. We cannot have a half-baked scheme, and one of the reasons why we took some time to agree to have a scheme at all is that it looked initially as if we could not have a scheme that was honest. There is no point in having a cosmetic scheme, one which we merely put over to show that there is the same position south of the border as there is north of the border.
We now have the making of a scheme, but my hon. Friend the Member for Woking is correct to say that the matter will have to be examined very carefully in Committee. We will not have the full details, but we will have to address ourselves precisely to the way that it will be implemented.
I must tell my hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) that their views of the north-east fisheries are exactly as I witnessed them when I visited the area and what my predecessor saw when he visited the area before he prepared that part of the Bill. I believe that fishermen in the north-east understand that these new regulations must work if they are to be able to stand up honestly and say that they must have the same acceptance and respect that any other users of this resource have. The proposal must work and we must enforce it.
That is why I have refused to accept the pressures that suggested that there ought to be other reasons why the licensee ought not be in the boat for reasons other than illness or accident. We cannot extend that because, if we do, it will become the excuse for others to point the finger at the north-east fishery. We must make sure that the proposal works and that the three-year investigation takes place on what is known to be a properly regulated fishery. Then if it seems that the fishery needs further restriction or if there were real reasons for it, we would know that they existed, and we would not have the kind of dispute that we have had this evening and in the past.
I should like to say a few words about the comments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). I must accuse the hon. Gentleman of having a fairyland view of poaching. He spoke about fairly innocent poaching. That is an interesting phrase to use. Can there be fairly innocent theft? Can there be fairly innocent murder and fairly innocent shoplifting? I wonder whether

we are using scrumping language—that is, using words to pretend that one has a middle lane position? I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was working very hard to produce a position between this side of the House and his own side of the House. He was working again towards the traditional alliance position. On the one hand, they are against serious poaching but, on the other, they do not want to condemn fairly innocent poaching. Obviously the odd poacher or two votes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There may be the odd voter in Brecon and Radnor whom the hon. Gentleman does not want to put off at the general election.
Salmon tagging is not a possible answer because of the vast number of imported salmon. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to propose a special scheme in Wales which might offer some advantage, I would be happy to look at it and would not dream of casting it aside out of hand. All the investigations that I have seen show that tagging cannot work in a society such as ours where the access of salmon, especially frozen salmon, gives rise to a genuine problem of control over the tags. Once one does not control the tags, the scheme is tailor-made for an extension, rather than a restriction, of poaching.
The Bill is a major step in the control of poaching, the conservation of salmon, and the protection of the proper demands and rights of those who live from and enjoy catching fish, whether by net or rod. I am sad that what could have been a debate in which all sides of the House could have found a joint answer has been destroyed by the petty, old-fashioned, narrow-minded, landlord-bashing of the landlord himself. The hon. Member for East Lothian has committed the closest to trahison des clercs that I know. The landlord attacks a perfectly reasonable conservation measure on the basis that it is landlordism. I hope that will not have the success that the hon. Gentleman seeks during his reselection process.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 125.

Division No. 92]
[12.41 am


AYES


Bermingham, Gerald
Loyden, Edward


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Buchan, Norman
McWilliam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Marek, Dr John


Clay, Robert
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maxton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
O'Neill, Martin


Dewar, Donald
Parry, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
Patchett, Terry


Eadie, Alex
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foster, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Foulkes, George
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Tinn, James


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wigley, Dafydd


Home Robertson, John



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Mr. Don Dixon and


Lamont, Norman
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Beith, A. J.


Alton, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ancram, Michael
Blackburn, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Boscawen, Hon Robert






Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Lord, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Carttiss, Michael
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Cash, William
Maclean, David John


Colvin, Michael
Major, John


Cope, John
Malone, Gerald


Corrie, John
Marland, Paul


Couchman, James
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mather, Carol


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Durant, Tony
Mellor, David


Dykes, Hugh
Merchant, Piers


Emery, Sir Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Monro, Sir Hector


Galley, Roy
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon C.


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Newton, Tony


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Normanton, Tom


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Onslow, Cranley


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Harris, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Haselhurst, Alan
Raffan, Keith


Hayes, J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Heddle, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hicks, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Holt, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howard, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Speed, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Spencer, Derek


Kirkwood, Archy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Knowles, Michael
Stern, Michael


Lamont, Norman
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lang, Ian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sumberg, David


Lester, Jim
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lilley, Peter
Terlezki, Stefan


Livsey, Richard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter





Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitney, Raymond


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary



Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Wheeler, John
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Whitfield, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Salmon Bill [Lords] [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Salmon Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown or government department in consequence of any order made under that Act for the purpose of requiring persons dealing in salmon to be licensed.—[Mr. Malone.]

WAYS AND MEANS

SALMON BILL [Lords] [Ways and Means]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Salmon Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of a requirement that a sum is to be paid on the making of an application for a licence to deal in salmon—[Mr. Malone.]

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 16th March 1984 relating to the appointment of the Select Committee on Procedure be amended, in line 9, by inserting, after the word 'House', the words 'to adjourn from place to place'.—[Mr. Malone.]

Ambulance Services (Guisborough)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]

Mr. Richard Holt: I welcome this opportunity to speak in an Adjournment debate at an early hour, because on the previous occasion it was at 4 am. My subject matter is much more serious tonight, because this is the last stop for an elected representative to try to redress the position of ambulance services in his constituency.
"Where is Langbaurgh?" is a kind of music hall joke. When I tell people that it is in Cleveland, they ask, "Where is Cleveland?" It is no joke to my constituents to find that the ambulance service which has served the heart of the constituency for many years has been altered by a decision by the area health authority. A couple of years ago the ambulance authorities decided that a report on ambulance services in east Cleveland would be prepared by the health operational research unit. HORU is a respectable and eminent body. It bases its researches on years of study in various parts of Britain. It puts all the information through a computer, which spews out answers at the end. As we all know, computers are capable of producing answers based only on the information put into them. If one fails to put in information about the topography, the weather or the disposition of the population, the answers are liable to be distorted, if they are based on a standard format.
The result of the action of the area health authority, acting on the recommendation of the local ambulance service managers, is that, to all intents and purposes, the Guisborough ambulance station has been closed. It is unusual in political life to find an issue on which all sectors of the community—religious, political and academic—are united. They all say in this case that the area health authority was wrong to make this change. Nobody can deny that the authority's criteria met the specifications of the Department. Indeed, those criteria went beyond the rural and into the metropolitan, specifications. This is a domestic matter affecting the south Cleveland area.
It may be argued that monetary savings are involved and that that must be for the good of the community. In this case, not only is it questionable whether there will be any savings, but I could adduce evidence to show that what is proposed will be more expensive. Either way we need not spend time trying to put a monetary value on people's lives.
The case that I make tonight is based on local knowledge of events in the last 12 months and the strong feeling of the local community that a wrong has been perpetrated. We have nobody but the Government to whom to turn to bring pressure on the area health authority, even at this late stage. to change its mind.
The initial recommendation was that the Guisborough ambulance station should close. That would have meant my constituents living near the north Yorkshire border being denied an important section of emergency ambulance provision. Bowing to public opinion, the local ambulance management had second thoughts and, instead of closing the Guisborough station, kept it open for 22 of every 24 hours by having on hand an ambulance and crew from Redcar.
The result is that there has been no cost saving, and a well-established station, its appliances and crews have been dispersed. Every day an ambulance crew travels half

an hour from Redcar to Guisborough. Later, it travels back to Redcar, and then another ambulance does the round journey. Thus, for two hours a day ambulances and crews are travelling between the two areas. For 22 hours a day, a strange crew from Redcar waits in Guisborough to answer emergency calls.
The logic of this has been lost on everyone, apart from the management and the area health authority. The service that is provided to my constituents has been diminished. That diminution goes beyond my constituency, into those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir. M. Shaw), for the ambulance services go to many of the small and outpost villages in the north Yorkshire area that are frequently cut off by adverse weather conditions, when the roads are impassable. These are the people who are most likely to be at risk.
An analysis of accident statistics in the area shows that the vast majority of road accidents occur on the fast moors road between Guisborough and Whitby. By definition, it will take longer for an ambulance crew to arrive at the scene of an accident than has hitherto been the case. There can be no justification for this.
Worse still is an analysis of the actions of the area health authority. It produced a plan to close the station, NA 111C h it then amended. Although the area health authority was supposed to take into consideration the views of all the people in the area, it admitted to what it called "a word processing error." The views of three of the parish and town councils adjacent to Guisborough were not presented at the meeting when the decision was taken. The voices of three important local community councils were not heard.
If there is a case for the alterations which have been made, it centres on a new ambulance station at Coulby Newham, at the western end of my constituency. This was commissioned and built at a time when the extrapolation of population growth was greater than that which has come about. The ambulance authorities were therefore faced with the embarrassment of a new building for which they had no use. They have justified its use by making it operational and by closing down, to all intents and purposes, the emergency service and cover in Guisborough.
Why is Guisborough so special? With a population of just under 20,000 it is the major town in my constituency. If one visited Guisborough, one would see, standing in a row in the same road, the police station, the fire station, the hospital, the Territorial Army barracks and the ambulance station, all within 200 yds of each other. What have the authorities done? They have closed the ambulance station. If there is an accident to which the fire engines and the police are called, they look around to see whether an ambulance will join them, or they hope that an ambulance will come to join them from Redcar or Carlin How. This cannot be right.
All my constituents have been to see me and have prevailed upon me to raise this matter in Parliament. It is their last hope that common sense and pressure can be brought to bear upon those who were responsible for making this decision. The shop stewards at the ambulance station are concerned. In case there are those who might suggest that this is a political intrigue, I must advise everyone that the ambulance service in Guisborough includes a Conservative councillor whose mother is also


a Conservative councillor for the town of Guisborough. In the political context, therefore, there is no divide. The new management of the ambulance authority is determined to make the change and to implement the health operational research unit recommendations, irrespective of the views and wishes of the populace.
Public meetings have been held, at the end of which no one was satisfied with the explanations given by the chief ambulance officer to justify the proposed changes. There have also been private meetings of the chambers of trade, Rotary and others concerned in the town. No one is in favour of the alteration, other than the management. Management admits that when it reached its conclusions it did not have all the evidence. It did not have the information which had been missed by the word processor and/or the computer. There is great strength of feeling that the very latest that could be done is for the Govenrment to write to the area health authority asking it to reconsider the view that has prevailed so far.
Some may ask why I have not been supported in my endeavours by other hon. Members in the Cleveland area. They are not supporting me because all of them are getting a better deal out of what the area health authority is bringing into practice. Therefore, I do not blame them for not supporting me. If I were the Member of Parliament for an area that was getting improved ambulance cover I would be grateful. But when one is left on one's own, one's resolve and strength of feeling become greater. It would have been more honest if other hon. Members from the Cleveland area had had the courage to support me in my long and sustained battle over the past 12 months against the area health authority.
There is no element of cost saving or of a cutting exercise. All too frequently people claim erroneously that the reason for Government action is that cuts are being made. That is not the case with the ambulance services in east Cleveland. The alteration is intended to improve the service. For one third of the area that will be the case, but for two thirds of the area—the larger geographical but the smaller numerically—that will be far from true.
I hope my hon. Friend will accept that there is no criticism of the Government and no intention to make play of cost cutting. The decision is wrong. It was made on ill-founded theoretical grounds. I do not want to be responsible for anyone having to tell a newly bereaved widow or mother that her husband or child has died because the ambulance service they had enjoyed has been taken away. That is what we are facing in east Cleveland. There can be no solace in that for anybody.
It is all very well to say that one is arguing about a difference of seven, eight, 10 or 11 minutes, but one is also arguing about a lost camaraderie which had been engendered within the ambulance station. In the community sense, the ambulance service is responsible not only for emergency cover, but for transporting patients to and from hospitals and homes for the elderly. All of that has been dissipated for no justifiable and logical reason, but because of an administrative managerial change. It is incumbent upon the Government to write a very strong letter to the area health authority venting these views so that the authority can reconsider and alter its decision and restore the position that we had before the changes. If it is necessary to justify the opening of Coulby Newham on any other grounds, and if there is not the money for that,

the case should be argued for Coulby Newham, but not at the expense of the ambulance station at Guisborough and my constituents.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) for giving me the opportunity to pay a brief but sincere tribute to the general contribution which the ambulance service makes to the Health Service and to the population, to the skill which it demonstrates and to the response that it shows in dealing with emergencies and caring for its patients.
I know that my hon. Friend will accept that a great deal of effort goes into ensuring that services are able to respond as efficiently as they do. It is essential that local managers of the services must plan carefully the way in which the services operate to ensure that the best quality of service in provided. There is no point in having ambulance stations running a full 24-hour emergency service if there is not a demand for that level of cover in that particular area. To do so means that an ambulance may not be available in other areas where the demand is greater. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that set of principles.
As my hon. Friend knows, the South Tees health authority is responsible for the management of the Cleveland ambulance service. As he has said, in cooperation with an independent survey conducted by the health operational research unit —HORU— which had studied emergency ambulance cover in about 20 other services in the country since 1974, the decision was taken to embark on a careful examination of the way in which emergency ambulance services were provided. Account was taken of the sort of factors to which my hon. Friend has referred, such as new roads, population changes and other developments. There was no rush to draw up proposals for future organisation of the service. A careful look was taken at the existing patterns of demand to ascertain where the relative demands of the different areas were and the times of the day when demand was greatest.
I understand that the district health authority was mindful of the fact that the Guisborough ambulance station had only a small emergency work load which, on average, amounted to less than one emergency call each night, two emergency calls each day and between one and two calls each evening. It judged that such a small work load could not justify emergency cover at that ambulance station on a full 24-hour basis, especially when other areas placed higher demands on the service. Instead, it proposed that between 8 am and 12 midnight emergency ambulance cover would be provided by outstationed ambulance crews allocated to the area.
The health authority was satisfied that under this arrangement the national standards for response time would continue to be met in Guisborough. It should be emphasised, as my hon. Friend has said, that the national standards for non-metropolitan areas such as Guisborough are lower than those for built-up areas. The health authority decided to aim for the higher metropolitan standard for Guisborough and for the entire Cleveland area. I suggest that that is a clear sign of the authority's wish to provide the best possible service to all the patients within its area.
But that was not the end of the story. The authority issued a full consultation document on its proposals and invited comments from a wide range of groups and individuals. We shall consider his argument about the failure to register or receive some of the comments. During the consultation period, officers of the authority attended over 30 gatherings throughout the area to explain the proposals and to answer questions. Written comments were received from a wide range of organisations, including neighbouring health authorities, community health councils, local authorities at various levels, trade unions, the staff of the ambulance service and individuals, including parliamentary colleagues.
The health authority considered carefully each and every comment received. On one particular aspect—namely, whether the proposed arrangements for emergency ambulance cover in Guisborough would result in a satisfactory level of cover—some concern was expressed. Although the health authority was satisfied that such cover would be satisfactory, it recognised the strength of feeling within the local community with regard to the proposal. My hon. Friend has reflected that concern again tonight.
The health authority decided to increase ambulance cover by providing a vehicle additional to the original proposals, between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am. That would mean that Guisborough would still have one emergency ambulance allocated to the area. The only difference is that the vehicles will not be based at the Guisborough ambulance station—this was the matter to which my hon. Friend referred—but the arrangement would enable a satisfactory level of cover for my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. Holt: Would the Minister kindly note that none of the representations that he has mentioned were in favour of the alterations.

Mr. Whitney: That may not be surprising in relation to proposals of this nature. Those who tended to accept them would not on the whole make representations.
The Health Service has said that the service will be closely monitored in the future. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of this being offered as a sop to those who question the new arrangements. It is a clear demonstration of the commitment of the health authority to ensuring that a safe and efficient service is provided. The Department is satisfied that this monitoring will be carried out properly. Certainly, if difficulties occur, which my hon. Friend fears, changes will be considered.
Clearly, what my hon. Friend has said tonight will be taken into account carefully by the health authority. I have no doubt at all that my hon. Friend will be watching the situation closely and will continue to draw any difficulties that he sees to the attention of the health authority I, too, shall follow the situation closely. I hope that this high level of cover in Guisborough will continue.
I understand the sense of loss for the vehicle, but I also understand that much work has gone into the se arrangements. The cover for my hon. Friend's constituents is at a very high level.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past One o' clock.